You are here: / / HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS...

HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 241(6) applied and the complaint was properly dismissed. The fact that the homeowner had worked in the construction field and had excess insurance coverage did not raise a question of fact whether the homeowner supervised plaintiff’s work:

​

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly found that the statutory exemption contained in Labor Law § 241(6) applied to the [defendants]. Labor Law § 241(6) exempts from liability “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” … . The phrase “direct or control” is “construed strictly and refers to the situation where the owner supervises the method and manner of the work” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the [defendants’] house was a one-family dwelling. Moreover, the [defendants] established, prima facie, that they did not direct or control the work … . In opposition … , the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Given the lack of evidence that the [defendants] supervised the method and manner of the work, the limited evidence that [the defendant husband] may have previously worked in the construction industry and that the [defendants] had excess insurance coverage does not create a triable issue of fact … . Hicks v Aibani, 2018 NY Slip Op 00413, Second Dept 1-24-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, I.E. SNOW PILED AT AN INTERSECTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INTERSECTION COLLISION WAS CAUSED BY THE INABILITY TO SEE BECAUSE OF THE PILE OF SNOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff-Pedestrian’s Acts Constituted Sole Proximate Cause
SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT.
THE REFEREE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF REFERENCE; SUPREME COURT’S RULINGS BASED UPON THE REFEREE’S ORDER WERE THEREFORE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (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

INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED... OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE...