You are here: / / ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT...

ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1), 241 (6) and 200 action should have been granted. The defendants are husband (Joel Mendlovits) and wife (Malka Mendloits). Malka owns the house where plaintiff was injured and was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from liability under the Labor Law. Joel, who did not own the house, hired the company for which the injured plaintiff worked. Joel was entitled to summary judgment because he was not a contractor or agent within the meaning of the Labor Law, nor did he exercise and control over plaintiff’s work:

​

Joel established that he did not possess the requisite authority to supervise or control the work being done to support liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). He hired All Care to perform stucco work on the home, but did not instruct All Care or the plaintiff how or when to do the work and did not provide them with any tools, materials, or safety equipment. The plaintiff received instructions on when, where, and how to perform the work from All Care and never spoke to Joel, who supervised the progress of the work only to the extent of making sure it was getting done. Such general supervision is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6) … . …

​

To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence where, as here, the plaintiff’s claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, “recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had . . . unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . Rodriguez v Mendlovits, 2017 NY Slip Op 05988, Second Dept 8-2-17

​

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).
Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated
A PARTY’S ADMISSION IN AN UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT IS NO LONGER ADMISSIBLE IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT AND DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHICH PUSHED HIS CAR INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WHICH WAS PARKED ALONG THE CURB IN VIOLATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS; THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR EIGHT-YEAR-OLD WAS SUPPORTED; BUT THE DERIVATIVE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR THE FOUR-MONTH-OLD WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (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

PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO... MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION DID NOT CREATE A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE...