You are here: / / Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply

Plaintiff lost fingers operating a table saw which was alleged not to have had a blade guard.  In determining the homeowner’s exception to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply, the Second Department wrote:

With respect to the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the appellant claimed the homeowners’ exemption for owners of one and two-family homes who did not supervise the work. In order to receive the protection of the homeowners’ exemption, a defendant must satisfy two prongs: that the work was conducted at a dwelling that is a residence for only one or two families, and the defendant did not direct or control the work … . Summary judgment on this issue was properly denied, as the evidence described above raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant supervised or controlled the work and, further, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant intended to use the subject house as rental property… .  Murillo v Porteus, 2013 NY slip Op 05517, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

You might also like
If the Accident Was Staged by the Insured, the Insurer Would Not Be Required to Cover a Party Injured In the Collision, Even If that Party Was Not Involved in the Staging
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS.
Unexcused Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking of the Pleadings
THE GYM TEACHER TOLD THE STUDENTS TO RUN AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING; STUDENT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OVER A CHAIN WHICH, SHE ALLEGED, OTHER STUDENTS WERE JUMPING OVER AS THEY RAN; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Can Be Allowed Even in Absence of Reasonable Excuse Where Defendants Had Actual Notice
NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD 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

Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude Application...