Homeowners’ Exception to the Rescue!

Preference for Ladders Over Scaffolding Not Sufficient for § 240(1)

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court, Kings County decision that granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.

In Buchanan v. De Orio, 2025 NY Slip Op 02309, the defendant homeowners conducting renovations on their residence, enlisted the plaintiff’s employer to remove and reinstall gutters on their home.  Defendant homeowners declined the use of scaffolding for the project.  The gutter project was completed over four days, during which plaintiff worked, and was completed in 2018. In 2019, defendant homeowners retained plaintiff’s employer to clean and seal the gutters that had been installed the previous year.  Plaintiff was tasked by his employer with cleaning and sealing the gutters, providing him with ladders to complete the work.  While working on the project in 2019, he fell approximately twenty (20) feet from one of the ladders onto the ground.   

After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment and plaintiff cross-moved.  The Supreme Court, Kings County held that the homeowners’ exemption to liability under the Labor Law applied as it was undisputed that the defendants’ home is a two-family dwelling.  Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.  Plaintiff’s contention that the homeowners “controlled the ladders” by refusing to use scaffolding at the subject site. 

Again, the standard for the homeowners’ exception to the Labor Law is “direct or control” and refer to where the homeowner supervises the methods and the manner of the work.  That was not the case here, and the homeowners escaped the § 240(1) claim.

The Buchanan decision can be found here.