You are here: / / THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES...
,

THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WORK HAS A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, I.E., RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE OR RENTAL; HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against the owner of a one or two-family dwelling should not have been dismissed on the ground that owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not control the work, are exempt form Labor Law liability. The exemption depends on whether the work serves a residential or commercial purpose. Here, without describing the facts, the Second Department held there was a question of fact about whether the work served a residential or commercial purpose:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) impose nondelegable duties upon property owners to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in certain activities. Both statutes exempt from liability “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (id. §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However “‘[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 defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), including whether the premises had a commercial purpose and whether the work the plaintiff performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … . Moreno v Hossain, 2026 NY Slip Op 03159, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: The exemption from Labor Law liability for owners of one and two-family homes does not apply when the purpose of the work is commercial, renovation for sale or rental, for example.

 

You might also like
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ONE INCH GAP BETWEEN SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT A LATE NOTICE OF HIS INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE OPINION CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE MENS REA CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL; DESPITE THE AFFIRMANCE OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION ON APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE THE APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY NONECONOMIC DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT OCCURRED CLOSE IN TIME TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST ON THE STREET AND WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BACKPACK WAS WITHIN THE GRABBABLE AREA AND NO PROOF OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC” DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, IN PART BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, CON ED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS USING AN EXCAVATOR WHEN IT TIPPED OVER INTO A CREEK (SECOND DEPT).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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 BANK SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE... THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS FOLLOWING THE SHOOTER’S CAR,...