You are here: / / BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION...

BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.

The Second Department determined the defendant property owner was entitled to the homeowners’ exemption from liability under the Labor Law, despite the fact that the residence included an office used for defendant’s business:

Owners of one- or two-family dwellings are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 241(6) unless they directed or controlled the work being performed … . “The exception was enacted to protect those people who, lacking business sophistication, would not know or anticipate the need to obtain insurance to cover them against the absolute liability”… .

… [T]he use of a portion of the defendant’s residence for commercial purposes did not automatically cause him to lose the protection of the exemption. The presence of an office in the basement did not detract from the building’s primary use as a residence, and the defendant’s commercial activity was incidental thereto … .

… The defendant’s alleged discussion with the injured plaintiff about the scope of the project and the defendant’s request to install a shelf and support beam were insufficient to transform the defendant from a legitimately concerned homeowner into a de facto supervisor, because these acts, without any specific direction as to how the injured plaintiff was to accomplish his tasks, do not constitute direction or control over the manner or method of the injured plaintiff’s work … . Levy v Baumgarten, 2017 NY Slip Op 00963, 2nd Dept 2-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW)/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW, BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW)

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT.
“Common Law Arbitration” Explained/”Common Law Arbitration” Waived by Seeking Relief in a Counterclaim
Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection
ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.
Criteria for “Trivial Defect” and “Open and Obvious” Explained
US BANK AS THE CURRENT ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION TO DISCHARGE AND CANCEL THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Brought a Frivolous Lawsuit Solely to Harass/Costs Properly Imposed on Plaintiff

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

MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE... CORRIDOR FORMED BY LUMBER AND MATERIALS PILED ON EITHER SIDE WAS A PASSAGEWAY...