Ivo Stejskal v Albert Simons
Annotate this Case[*1] Ivo Stejskal et al., Appellants,
v
Albert Simons III et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Decided June 24, 2004
Stejskal v Simons, 309 AD2d 853, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Profeta & Eisenstein, New York City (Fred R. Profeta, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.
DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, P.C., New York City (Dennis A. Breen of counsel), for respondents.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
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 [*2]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]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.