The Homeowners’ Exception to Labor Law § 2410(1) is Not Automatic
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court, Kings County decision that denied a defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action on the basis of the homeowner’s exception to those statutes.
The relevant language for these statutes:
Labor Law § 240(1) states “1. All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work . . . “
Labor Law § 241(6) states “6. All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work . . . The commissioner may make rules to carry into effect the provisions of this subdivision, and the owners and contractors and their agents for such work, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, shall comply therewith.”
In Kharyshyn v. West End 82, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05586, plaintiff alleges that he fell off of a later while performing construction work at a property located in Manhattan. Approximately sixty (60) days after answering the Complaint, the defendant homeowner moved for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law claims, arguing that it was exempt from the provisions of the Labor Law as the owner of a one-family dwelling and did not have actual or constructive notice of the any defects.
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied, without prejudice, the homeowner’s motion for summary judgment., finding that the motion was made prematurely as no depositions had been completed and the record reflects that discovery may lead to relevant evidence pertaining to whether the homeowners’ exemption applies.
The homeowners’ exemption to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) is not automatic and carries a burden of proof with it on summary judgment. While it may be a relatively easy burden to meet if you’re the right defendant in a Labor Law action, you’re usually going to need some kind of discovery in order to support that motion.
The Kyaryshyn 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.