2 No. 140 SSM 23
Ivo Stejskal, et al.,
Albert Simons III, et al.,
Respondents. (and a third-party action).

2004 NY Int. 99

June 24, 2004

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

Submitted by Fred R. Profeta, Jr., for appellants.
Submitted by Dennis A. Breen, for respondents.


The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The evidence unequivocally demonstrated that the sole purpose of the construction work was to convert what was a multiple dwelling into a one-family dwelling for the owners' use. Thus, defendant owners were entitled to avail themselves of the “one- or two-family homeowner's exemption” provided in Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241 ( see Khela v Neiger, , 85 NY2d 333, 338 1995]; Cannon v Putnam, , 76 NY2d 644, 650 [1990]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and Smith concur.

Decided June 24, 2004