Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of motion filed on December 6, 2024, under motion sequence number one, by Amparito Mostafa and Saber Mostafa (hereinafter defendants) for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting the defendants summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the amended verified complaint of Julio Bajana (hereinafter plaintiff). The motion is opposed.

Exhibits A-F

Exhibits 1

On September 1, 2020, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against defendant Amparito Mostafa by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office (KCCO). On October 16, 2020, Amparito Mostafa interposed and filed an answer with the KCCO.

On July 8, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation consenting to amending the complaint to include Saber Mostafa as a defendant with the KCCO. In accordance with the stipulation, on July 25, 2022, the plaintiff filed a supplemental summons and amended verified complaint including Saber Mostafa as a defendant with the KCCO.

On August 24, 2022, defendant Saber Mostafa interposed and filed an answer with the KCCO.

The amended verified complaint alleges forty-nine allegations of facts in support of two causes of action. The first cause of action is for common law negligence. The second cause of action is for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), 242-a and 200.

The amended verified complaint and plaintiff's bill of particulars have alleged the following salient facts. On July 24, 2020, the plaintiff was injured when he was bringing a kitchen countertop with his coworker up an interior staircase of the defendants' property located at a certain address in Brooklyn, New York (hereinafter the subject property). The plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell because of construction paper coming loose on the steps inside the subject property due to the defendants' negligence.

The defendants' motion papers consist of a notice of motion, a statement of material facts, a memorandum of law, and an affirmation of counsel in support with six annexed exhibits labeled A through F. Exhibit A is plaintiff's verified bill of particulars. Exhibits B and C are plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars. Exhibit D is the deposition transcript of the plaintiff. Exhibit E is the deposition transcript of defendant Saber Mostafa. Exhibit F is the deposition transcript of defendant Amparitio Mostafa.

The plaintiff submitted an affirmation in opposition, an affirmation of a professional engineer, and a response to defendants' statement of material facts.

The defendants submitted an affirmation in reply.

The plaintiff's opposition papers were silent as to the branch of the defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's causes of action under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 and 242-a. Consequently, those branches of the plaintiff's complaint are hereby dismissed as abandoned (see Elam v Ryder Sys., Inc., 176 AD3d 675, 676 [2d Dept 2019], citing Pita v Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist., 156 AD3d 833, 835 [2d Dept 2017]).

Defendants' motion also seeks dismissal of the remaining causes of action, namely, the [*2]claims for violation of Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence. "Labor Law § 200 (1) is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work" (Ramos v Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC, — NYS3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 01249, *2 [2d Dept 2025], quoting Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp., 219 AD3d 1380, 1382 [2d Dept 2023]). "Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed" (Ramos, 2025 NY Slip Op 01249, *2, quoting Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp., 219 AD3d 1380, 1382 [2d Dept 2023]; see Reyes v Sligo Constr. Corp., 214 AD3d 1014, 1017 [2d Dept 2023]); Toalongo v Almarwa Ctr., Inc., 202 AD3d 1128, 1131 [2d Dept 2022]).

"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work" (Ramos, 2025 NY Slip Op 01249, *2, quoting Hamm v Review Assoc., LLC, 202 AD3d 934, 938 [2d Dept 2022]). "Where a plaintiff's injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition" (Ramos, 2025 NY Slip Op 01249, *2, quoting Hamm, 202 AD3d at 938).

"When an accident is alleged to involve a dangerous condition and the manner in which the work is performed, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards" (Ramos, 2025 NY Slip Op 01249, *2, quoting Hamm, 202 AD3d at 938). "A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff's accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard" (Ramos, 2025 NY Slip Op 01249, *2, quoting Hamm, 202 AD3d at 938).

In the case at bar, plaintiff was injured while carrying a kitchen countertop up a stairway backwards when he slipped and fell because construction came loose on the steps. This accident involved both the method and manner in which the work was being performed and an allegedly dangerous condition on the stairway.

Here, the defendants were obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards. The defendants' sole contention, however, was that the defendants did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, nor did they have the authority to supervise or control the work. The defendants, however, did not argue the liability standard pertaining to a dangerous or defective condition at the work site. Moreover, they presented no evidence as to when they last viewed or inspected the subject stairway prior to the accident (see Butts v SJF, LLC, 171 AD3d 688, 689-690 [2d Dept 2019]). They, therefore, would have been able to successfully argue that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition.

Additionally, the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them for common law negligence must also be denied for the same reason. The defendants did not establish that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's injuries. Consequently, this branch of the defendants' motion must be denied without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The motion by defendants Amparito Mostafa and Saber Mostafa for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting the defendants summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the amended verified complaint of the plaintiff Julio Bajana is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.