Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant is the owner of the facility in which the plaintiff, a coemployee of the defendant, was injured. Under these circumstances, imposing liability upon the defendant pursuant to Labor Law § 241 would be contrary to Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), which makes workers' compensation "the exclusive remedy of an employee injured `by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ'" (Heritage v Van Patten, 59 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019, citing Williams v Hartshorn, 296 N.Y. 49, 50-51). "Regardless of his status as owner of the premises where the injury occurred [Berk] remains a coemployee in his relations with [the injured] plaintiff in all matters arising from and connected with their employment" (Heritage v Van Patten, supra, at 1019). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.