Opinion
June 18, 1999
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.
PRESENT: DENMAN, P. J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BALIO, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Sear-Brown Group (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages for injuries sustained by William R. Harvey (plaintiff) when his body was exposed to liquid concrete at a construction site. Defendant established that it did not design or manufacture the liquid concrete and that it did not select that particular mix of concrete for use on the project.
The court erred, however, in determining that it was unnecessary to reach plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert causes of action for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). In order to impose liability upon a design engineer who performs on-site inspections of the construction work for a violation of either section, a plaintiff must establish that the engineer exercised supervision and control over the activity resulting in plaintiff's injury ( see, Becker v. Tallamy, Van Kuren, Gertis Assocs., 221 A.D.2d 1014). The performance of on-site inspections does not constitute such supervision and control ( see, Bogenrieder v. Crippen Heating Air Conditioning, 244 A.D.2d 995; Warsaw v. Eastern Rock Prods., 210 A.D.2d 883, lv dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 967; Paterson v. Hennessy, 206 A.D.2d 919, 920). Plaintiffs presented no evidence that defendant exercised the requisite supervision and control, and thus we modify the order by denying the cross motion ( see, Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107, 116; see also, Morgan v. Prospect Park Assocs. Holdings, 251 A.D.2d 306).