As the president of the corporation that managed the apartment building where plaintiff fell and employed him as a porter, defendant owed plaintiff a duty of implementing the measures that would satisfy the duty that defendant owed plaintiff, as owner of the building, of providing a safe place to work. Defendant's duty toward plaintiff as a coemployee being indistinguishable from his duty toward him as a property owner, the action is barred by the exclusivity provision for coemployees in Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) ( Heritage v. Van Patten, 59 N.Y.2d 1017; compare, Cusano v. Staff, 191 A.D.2d 918 [defendant not immune from suit where his control over the accident site was only as the owner of the property, and not at all as the plaintiff's coemployee]).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.