You are here: / / CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL IN TAX FILINGS DID NOT PRECLUDE...
,

CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL IN TAX FILINGS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ONE-OR-TWO-FAMILY HOME EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s (Artifact’s) motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. The one-or-two-family home exemption applied, even though the property was classified as commercial in tax filings:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Artifact’s classification of the property as commercial in certain tax filings does not estop it from relying upon the exemption in this action … . The Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a residential property is considerably narrower than the scope of the one- or two-family home exemption to liability under section 240 (1) … , and, as such, Artifact’s tax declarations are not ” logically incompatible’ ” with its current reliance upon that exemption … . Wood v Artifact Props., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01030, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

You might also like
CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED IN CASE ALLEGING NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED HARASSMENT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE BUT DID NOT SUPPORT AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).
Absentee Landlord Granted Summary Judgment in Lead-Paint Exposure Case—No Constructive Notice
FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO KILL, IN ADDITION, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH 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

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION TO VACATE A TAX FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT SHOULD... ALLEGATIONS OF COMPENSABLE DAMAGES INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COMPLAINT...