You are here: / / Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply

Plaintiff lost fingers operating a table saw which was alleged not to have had a blade guard.  In determining the homeowner’s exception to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply, the Second Department wrote:

With respect to the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the appellant claimed the homeowners’ exemption for owners of one and two-family homes who did not supervise the work. In order to receive the protection of the homeowners’ exemption, a defendant must satisfy two prongs: that the work was conducted at a dwelling that is a residence for only one or two families, and the defendant did not direct or control the work … . Summary judgment on this issue was properly denied, as the evidence described above raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant supervised or controlled the work and, further, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant intended to use the subject house as rental property… .  Murillo v Porteus, 2013 NY slip Op 05517, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

You might also like
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, IN A BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE COURT, ALERTED THE COURT TO NEW INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CUSTODY RULING BY FAMILY COURT; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Vacation of a Stipulation of Settlement Not Met
PETITIONER JUDGMENT-CREDITOR WAS ENTITLED TO THE TURNOVER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A TRUST BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTORS, AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF RESPONDENTS’ SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX (SECOND DEPT).
​ ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMITED DEFENDANT TO SIX MONTHS IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20(6) WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
Questions of Fact Whether Infant-Plaintiff’s Injury at the Hands of Other Students Was Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision and/or Negligent Hiring and/or Retention
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST NEED NOT BE PAID INTO THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2601 WHEN SUCH A PAYMENT IS MADE TO STOP THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST.
DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE STATE HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT INMATES FROM ASSAULTS BY OTHER INMATES, THAT DUTY DOES NOT EXTEND TO UNFORESEEABLE ATTACKS (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

Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude Application...