Failure to Plead Homeowners’ Exception to Labor Law §§ 200 & 241(6) Keeps Plaintiff from Tour of Domicile
Usually, we cover decisions relating directly to the Labor Law. However, a recent Second Department case gives us a look into a discovery dispute that arose out of a Labor Law case involving the Homeowners’ Exception to Labor Law.
Keep in mind, the Homeowners’ Exception to the Labor Law shields homeowners from liability for a property that is being used as the homeowner’s primary residence, and does not apply to properties that are being utilized for commercial purposes.
In Espinoza v. Tejeda, 2024 NY Slip Op 03031, plaintiff alleged that he fell from the roof of a premises owned by the defendants and sustained injuries. The defendants answered the complaint, denying the allegations regarding the premises being a multiple unit dwelling, but failing to assert the affirmative defense of the homeowners’ exemption liability under Labow Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then amended their answer, but still did not assert that affirmative defense. Discovery ensued, and plaintiff served a notice for discovery and inspection demanding an inspection of the interior of the premises where the accident occurred (plaintiff’s accident occurred on the exterior of the premises).
Defendants objected to the demand, and plaintiff moved pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3120(1)(ii) to have the Court direct the defendants to allow entry into the interior of the premises to inspect and photograph the rooms and facilities to determine if the premises was divided into three separate apartments. Defendants then cross-moved pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3103 for a protective order, striking plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection seeking an inspection of the interior of the premises. The Supreme Court, Queens County issued an order that, in effect, granted the cross-motion by defendants and denied plaintiff’s motion.
The body of case law pertaining to discovery is vast. Briefly, C.P.L.R. § 3101(a), one of the sections governing discovery in New York, entitles parties to disclosure of all matter material and necessary to prosecution of the action, though it is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence, or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims.
The Second Department sided with the lower Court, noting that plaintiff failed to establish that access to the interior of the premises would yield matter material and necessary to the prosecution of the action and further noted that plaintiff’s demand was palpably improper as it sought irrelevant information and could be considered overly broad and burdensome. Under the circumstances of this particular case, where the accident occurred on the exterior of the premises, and the defendants have not asserted a homeowners’ exception to the Labor Law, plaintiff failed to establish that access to the interior of the premises would yield information material and necessary to the prosecution of the action.
In short, because the defendants failed to include the homeowners’ exception affirmative defense to the Labor Law action, plaintiff was barred from taking a tour of their home because the accident occurred on the exterior of the building.
The Espinoza decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq..
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
