Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Homeowner Not General Contractor

In dismissing the action against defendant homeowner, the Third Department determined the homeowner’s exemption applied, the homeowner did not direct or supervise plaintiff’s work, and the homeowner could not be characterized as a general contractor:

Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 each “impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities . . .[,] the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” … .  In this context, “the phrase ‘direct or control’ is to be strictly construed and, in ascertaining whether a particular homeowner’s actions amount to direction or control of a project, the relevant inquiry is the degree to which the owner supervised the method and manner of the actual work being performed by the injured [party]” * * *

The case law makes clear …that neither providing site plans …., obtaining a building permit …, hiring contractors, purchasing materials…, offering suggestions/input …, inspecting the site … , retaining general supervisory authority … , performing certain work …nor physical presence at the site operates to deprive a homeowner of the statutory exemption – so long as the homeowner did not exercise direction or control over the injury-producing work… . * * *

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.  In order to prevail on such claims, plaintiff was required to establish that defendant both “exercised supervisory control over plaintiff’s work and had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe manner in which the work was being performed”… . Bombard v Pruiksma, 516213, 3rd Dept 10-24-13