You are here: / / Single-Family House Exemption to Labor Law Action Applied

Single-Family House Exemption to Labor Law Action Applied

In finding the homeowner’s exemption of Labor Law 240(1) and 240 applied to work on a single-family house in which the business owners lived and from which the defendant business derived no income, the Second Department wrote:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241, which impose certain nondelegable safety duties upon “contractors[,] owners and their agents,” specifically exempt “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” Here, Green Chimneys [defendant] demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to, inter alia, its claim that it was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241 by establishing that the Founder’s House was a single-family dwelling used solely as a residence for Green Chimneys’ founder and his wife, the house served no commercial or business use for Green Chimneys, which received no income from the house, and Green Chimneys did not direct or control the work being performed…. Parise v Green Chimneys Children’s Servs, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03649, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Recovery of Lost Profits for Breach of Contract Described
CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD IN THIS LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ATTACKERS’ VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY MEASURES, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
RELIGIOUS LIFESTYLE RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON MOTHER VIOLATED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, FATHER’S DESIRE TO RAISE AND EDUCATE THE CHILDREN IN THE HASIDIC TRADITION WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third... Wife’s Stipulation Waiving Claim to Benefits Valid Even though Law Unclear...