You are here: / / HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER...

HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the homeowner’s exception to Labor Law liability applied to the owner of the home (Kathleen) but not to the agent of the owner who supervised the work (Mervyn). Plaintiff fell from a scaffold:

More generally, “Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents” … . ” A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured'” … . “It is not a defendant’s title that is determinative, but the amount of control or supervision exercised” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish Mervyn’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action by demonstrating that he lacked the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Specifically, the defendants submitted transcripts of the plaintiff’s two depositions, at which he testified that, in addition to visiting the site daily and telling the plaintiff what work to do, Mervyn provided and instructed him to use the allegedly defective scaffold and a safety belt to complete the work that led to his injury. Moreover, the plaintiff testified that his boss told him to follow Mervyn’s instructions, and there is no dispute on this record that Mervyn was listed as an insured on the plaintiff’s employer’s policy. …

To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or the common law in a case such as this, where the claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, a defendant must have authority to supervise or control the work … . Here, the defendants established Kathleen’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against her, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . For the same reasons as those articulated above, however, the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden with respect to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against Mervyn … . Abdou v Rampaul, 2017 NY Slip Op 01169, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK)/HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK)/AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER WHO SUPERVISED THE WORK)

You might also like
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION IN ITS ANSWER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE AN EXCEPTION APPLIED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASPIRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED AS TREATMENT FOR STROKE WAS RAISED IN A DEPOSITION (BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS) ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUSH A HEAVY DOLLY UP A RAMP WHEN IT ROLLED BACK AND INJURED HIM (SECOND DEPT).
Adverse Interest Exception to In Pari Delicto Defense May Apply—The Two Concepts Are Briefly Explained
Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty
SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (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

INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S... SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN,...