Opinion
February 7, 1997.
Appeal from order insofar as it denied reargument dismissed ( see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984) and order reversed on the law without costs, cross motion granted and complaint against defendant Visone Construction Co., Inc., dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Visone Construction Co., Inc. (Visone), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Visone, a subcontractor with no authority to supervise or control the work, is not liable pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) or § 241 (6) ( see, Russin v Picciano Son, 54 NY2d 311, 318; Wright v Nichter Constr. Co., 213 AD2d 995, 995-996). Because Visone did not exercise control over the manner and method of plaintiff James E. Long's work, there is no basis for the imposition of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 200 ( see, Adamczyk v Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 AD2d 1049); Foster v Joseph Co., 216 AD2d 944, 945). Because Visone did not assume, either by contract or otherwise, a continuing duty to inspect the work site, it cannot be held liable under a common-law negligence theory for injuries sustained by an employee of the owner four months after Visone had completed its work and left the work site.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
All concur, Wesley, J., not participating. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.)