Justice Jack M. Battaglia
Paredes moved for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law §240(1) claim against defendants. He allegedly sustained personal injuries when a plastic bucket of debris being lowered from an elevated worksite struck him while he was performing demolition work at the site. Paredes alleged he was employed by Regal, noting he was on the corner of 65th Street and picked up as a day laborer with others. The court noted Paredes’ affidavit and testimony established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his §240(1) claim against 1168 Realty, the owner of the premises. 1668 argued Paredes was not an “employee” of Regal. The court noted that even if there existed an issue of fact of whether Paredes was employed by Regal, 1668 failed to show how that issue bore on its liability under §240(1). It noted §2(7) defined “employed” as “permitted or suffered to work,” stating 1168 failed to show any evidence demonstrating an issue of fact if Paredes was a “person so employed” in demolition at the site on the date of the accident. The court ruled the issue of whether Paredes was employed by Regal or another entity was “of no moment,” as it was undisputed he was “permitted or suffered to work” on the premises on that date, granting Paredes’ motion against 1168.
