Plaintiff, a maintenance worker employed by Monarch, was injured when he fell from a ladder which slipped while he was power-washing the plexiglass canopy of Monarch's residential condominium premises. Monarch had retained defendant LaSala Management, Inc. (LaSala) to act as managing agent for the building and LaSala, in turn, subcontracted the management of the facilities to Brozman.
Plaintiff was entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 240(1) since at the time of his accident he was engaged in the "cleaning . . . of a building" (see, Chapman v. Intl. Bus. Mach. Corp., 253 A.D.2d 123; Ekere v. Airmont Park, 249 A.D.2d 104). Although Chapman and Ekere involved commercial buildings, their holdings are nonetheless applicable since the power-washing of the plexiglass canopy affixed over the entry to the subject condominium premises does not fall under the rubric of "truly domestic" household cleaning (see, Vernum v. Zilka, 241 A.D.2d 885, 886), nor was plaintiff's work being performed for a residential unit owner, distinguishing the matter from Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., ( 87 N.Y.2d 938).
The motion court correctly found LaSala to be a statutory agent within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) since the management contract vested LaSala with authority to supervise the injury-producing work. The fact that LaSala, for purposes of Workers Compensation, does not exercise the authority it had is irrelevant to the determination of whether it was a statutory agent (see, Doyne v. Barry, Bette Led Duke, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 756). The IAS court's prior, unappealed determination that plaintiff was not a "special employee" of LaSala does not require a different conclusion. A finding of special employment is justified only where the special employer exerts complete and exclusive control over the purported special employee, as to whom the general employer has relinquished all control" (Sanfillipo v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 296). By contrast, in determining statutory agency, it is the right to control that is dispositive. (see, Gonzalez v. John B. Lovett Assoc., Ltd., 228 A.D.2d 342).
Monarch's appeal from the denial of its motion for renewal is without merit since the purportedly new information on which its motion for renewal was premised was available to Monarch at the time of initial motion (see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568).
We have examined the parties' other arguments for affirmative relief and find them unpersuasive.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.