You are here: / / DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER...

DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the homeowner should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he fell 14 feet attempting to install floor joists across the foundation. The Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed pursuant to the statutory homeowner’s exemption, which was deemed applicable because defendant did not direct the plaintiff’s installation of the joists. The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed for essentially the same reason (there is no statutory homeowner’s exemption for those causes of action):

… [P]laintiff averred that he and defendant had discussions about work orders, logistics, materials and the architectural drawings, that defendant checked in with him on a daily basis, that defendant told him where to park during work hours and to lock a gate at the conclusion of the workday, that defendant changed the stairs and windows to be used for the house and changed the placement of a fireplace and that defendant moved rocks and applied tape to plywood at the construction site. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, however, this evidence does not indicate that defendant directed or controlled the manner of plaintiff’s work … . Capuzzi v Fuller, 2021 NY Slip Op 07335, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

You might also like
COUNTY COURT, SUA SPONTE, IN GRANTING THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, RELIED ON FACTORS ABOUT WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED BEFORE THE SORA HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING AFTER PROPER NOTICE (THIRD DEPT).
HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, REVERSING FAMILY COURT, DETERMINED IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (BORN 2003) TO ORDER A DNA TEST FOR PETITIONER, IN PART BECAUSE NOT KNOWING WHO HER BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS IS A SOURCE OF TURMOIL (THIRD DEPT).
BOTH THE HIPAA PRIVACY RULE AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW APPLY TO THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RECORDS DOCUMENTING INJURIES SUFFERED BY ATHLETES USING THE OLYMPIC TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK; THE HIPAA DEIDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE REQUESTED RECORDS (THIRD DEPT). ​
BIOMETRIC SCREENER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY.
Defendants Ordered to Dismantle and Remove Boathouses Built Without Permits/Immediate Neighbors Had Standing to Bring an Action to Enjoin the Zoning Violations
COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).
Court Has Common-Law “Interest of Justice” Authority to Modify Its Own Order and/or a Stipulation Entered Into During Litigation

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT FIREFIGHTER DEMONSTRATED HIS PTSD IS RELATED TO THE HORRIFIC INJURIES... FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, AMEND A DISMISSAL ORDER...