Marvin v. Korean Air Inc.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered December 13, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs claims pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 200, unanimously affirmed, without costs. 224 The alleged injury-producing activity, plaintiffs descent from the back of a flatbed truck, did not present risks of the sort that Labor Law § 240 (1) was intended to address (see Dilluvio v City of New York, 264 AD2d 115 [2000], affd 95 NY2d 928 [2000]; Tillman v Triou’s Custom Homes, 253 AD2d 254, 257 [1999]). Nor, in light of the absence of any evidence that defendants had supervision or control of plaintiffs work, is there any triable issue with respect to plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 claim (see Blessinger v Estee Lauder Cos., 271 AD2d 343 [2000]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.