You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Homeowner Not General Contractor

In dismissing the action against defendant homeowner, the Third Department determined the homeowner’s exemption applied, the homeowner did not direct or supervise plaintiff’s work, and the homeowner could not be characterized as a general contractor:

Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 each “impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities . . .[,] the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” … .  In this context, “the phrase ‘direct or control’ is to be strictly construed and, in ascertaining whether a particular homeowner’s actions amount to direction or control of a project, the relevant inquiry is the degree to which the owner supervised the method and manner of the actual work being performed by the injured [party]” * * *

The case law makes clear …that neither providing site plans …., obtaining a building permit …, hiring contractors, purchasing materials…, offering suggestions/input …, inspecting the site … , retaining general supervisory authority … , performing certain work …nor physical presence at the site operates to deprive a homeowner of the statutory exemption – so long as the homeowner did not exercise direction or control over the injury-producing work… . * * *

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.  In order to prevail on such claims, plaintiff was required to establish that defendant both “exercised supervisory control over plaintiff’s work and had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe manner in which the work was being performed”… . Bombard v Pruiksma, 516213, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

Cleaning Gutters Not Covered

The Second Department determined that cleaning out gutters is not work covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Although Labor Law § 240(1) applies to commercial “cleaning” which is not part of construction, demolition, or repair …, such as commercial window washing and sandblasting …, it does not apply to work that is incidental to regular maintenance, such as clearing gutters of debris … . Hull v Fieldpoint Community Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06837, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)

In reversing a verdict after trial, the Second Department noted that the Labor Law imposes liability upon the agents of the property owner, as well as the owner and general contractor:

In addition to owners and general contractors, Labor Law § 240(1) imposes liability upon agents of the property owner who have the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury … . * * * In light of the trial evidence, the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the defendants were acting as the homeowner’s agent, with the authority to supervise and control the injured plaintiff’s work on the roof … . Accordingly, since the error was not harmless a new trial is required… . Arto v Cairo Constr Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05863, Second Dept 9-18-13

 

Injury from Falling Piece of Concrete-Pour-Form Raised Question of Fact About Liability Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The Second Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff was removing wooden forms used to pour concrete. After removing one piece of a form, the piece above it fell and struck plaintiff. The Second Department explained:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires property owners and contractors to provide workers with “scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to the workers (Labor Law § 240[1]). The purpose of the statute is to protect against “such specific gravity-related accidents as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured” .. . However, not every object that falls on a worker gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) …. Thus, in order to recover damages for violation of the statute, the “plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker” .. . A plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was “being hoisted or secured” … or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . The plaintiff must also show that the object fell “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute”… .  . The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion did not establish “the absence of a causal nexus between the worker’s injury and a lack or failure of a device prescribed by section 240(1)”.. . Ross v DD 11th Ave LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05686, 2nd Dept 8-21-13

 

Sheetrock Resting on Blocks Satisfied Height Differential in Labor Law 240(1) Action

The First Department determined that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on her Labor Law 240(1) claim which was based on injuries from sheetrock boards which slipped from where they were leaning against a wall and resting on blocks of wood two feet high.  The two-foot height differential was sufficient to implicate 240(1).  However the record was not sufficient to find, upon a summary judgment motion, that the injuries were proximately caused by the absence of a safety device.  Rodriguez v DRLD Dev Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05548, 1st Dept 8-6-13.

 

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

 

Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action

Plaintiff was standing on the second highest rung of a ladder when he lost his balance and fell.  In reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the Second Department explained:

” Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'” … . ” To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries'” .. . “The mere fact that a plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided” … . There must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries … . Where a plaintiff falls off the ladder because he or she lost his or her balance, and there is no evidence that the ladder from which the plaintiff fell was defective or inadequate, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … . To impose liability under such circumstances would make a defendant an insurer of the workplace, a result which the Legislature never intended in enacting Labor Law § 240(1) … .  Hugo v Sarantakos, 2013 NY Slip Op 05512, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

, , ,

Contract Between Town and Employer of Injured Employee Did Not Allow Indemnification of Town by Employer

In a Labor Law action seeking damages for a fall from the roof of a building under construction, the Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed the town’s motion for contractual indemnification against plaintiff’s employer because the contract was not intended to be retroactive to the day of the injury.  The Fourth Department explained the applicable law as follows:

“Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 prohibits a third-party action against an employer unless the plaintiff sustained a grave injury or there is ‘a written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution or indemnification of the [third party plaintiff]’ ”… .  The Town concedes that plaintiff did not suffer a “grave injury,” and that it is entitled to indemnification only if it can demonstrate the existence of a written contract.  “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … .  Meabon v Town of Poland…, 634, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling

The Second Department determined a Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed.  As plaintiff was attempting to paint the ceiling while standing on a ladder, a portion of the ceiling fell, causing injury.  In explaining why section 240 does not apply to the facts, the court wrote:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires property owners and contractors to provide workers with “scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to the workers (Labor Law § 240[1]). The purpose of the statute is to protect against “such specific gravity-related accidents as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured”…. “With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'”… . Thus, to recover damages for violation of the statute, a “plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker” … . The plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was “being hoisted or secured” (id. at 268) or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”… . Flossos v Waterside Redevelopment Co LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05297, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

Unsafe Access to Roof Supported Summary Judgment

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) based on the failure to provide equipment which would allow safe access to the roof where the window-washing equipment in need of repair was located, the First Department explained:

The record demonstrates that the Met and Lincoln Center failed to provide adequate safety devices to protect plaintiff from the risks associated with gaining access to the Opera House roof and the steel carriage rail, and therefore they are liable for plaintiff’s injuries under Labor Law § 240(1)…. Not only did plaintiff have to be elevated to the roof of the Opera House from the sixth floor, for which a ladder was provided, but he also had to use both hands to close the hatch door while standing on the ladder. No safety device was provided to protect him against the risk associated with breaking three-point contact with the ladder so as to use both hands to close the hatch door. Mayo v Metropolitan Opera Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 04993, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

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