You are here: / / GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE...
,

GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the defendant property-owner in this ladder-fall case was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability because the work related to a commercial purpose:

“Although the Labor Law generally imposes liability for worker safety on property owners and contractors, it exempts from liability ‘owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work'” ( … Labor Law §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However, “[t]he exemption ‘was not intended to insulate from liability owners who use their one- or two-family houses purely for commercial purposes'” … . “‘[R]enovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose'” … . “Where the property serves both residential and commercial purposes, [a] determination as to whether the exemption applies in a particular case turns on the nature of the site and the purpose of the work being performed, and must be based on the owner’s intentions at the time of the injury” … .

Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption, including whether the work being performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … and whether the defendant intended to use the premises as a three-family dwelling … .  Reyes v Rahman, 2025 NY Slip Op 06348, Second Dept 11-19-25

Practice Point: The homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability does not apply where the home is used for commercial purposes.​

 

You might also like
Golfer Assumed the Risk of Tripping on Grate in Golf-Cart Path
A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SOUNDS IN TORT TRIGGERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE (1) STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE REVERSE MORTGAGE, (2) DEFAULT AND (3) NOTICE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).
AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PREFERENCE OF CHILDREN NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED.
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS STUDENT-PUSHES-STUDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
NO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A TORT CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK.

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

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S DATASHEET IS AN ATTORNEY-WORK-PRODUCT WHICH IS... THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED ON APPEAL, DETERMINING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD...