You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN...
, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the homeowner’s exemption applied to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action and whether he was liable under the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Although the plaintiff was working on defendant’s private residence, plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by defendant:

Although the defendant demonstrated that the work being performed at his single-family home was directly related to its residential use … , the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not direct or control the plaintiff’s work. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, the defendant owned a business that employed the plaintiff to perform carpentry work on decks and that the defendant instructed the plaintiff on which boards to remove and replace at the defendant’s home. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant provided all of the materials and tools that the plaintiff used for the work at the defendant’s home. Thus, the defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he directed or controlled the plaintiff’s work … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not from a dangerous premises condition …. . [Defendant] failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, since he failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he had the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Walsh v Kenny, 2023 NY Slip Op 04791, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was working on his employer’s (the defendant’s) private residence when injured. The defendant provided the materials and there was evidence he supervised the work. Therefore questions of fact precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action (pursuant to the homeowner’s exemption to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action), as well as on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action.

 

You might also like
CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO RESETTLE REQUESTED A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PARTIES’ RIGHTS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY RESETTLING AN ORDER; A MOTION TO RESETTLE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS CLERICAL ERRORS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN AN INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE STEP WAS LAST INSPECTED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY DEFECT WAS LATENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
New York State Can Issue a License to Practice Law to an Undocumented Immigrant Authorized to Be In the United States by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Policy of the Federal Government
​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS THEREFORE APPLIED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN... THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED...