Johnson v. Cremoux
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A construction worker injured by a table saw during a home renovation sought recovery under Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and general contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations], raising disputes over the homeowner exemption, compliance with Industrial Code saw-safety rules, and whether the contractor could amend its pleading to assert the antisubrogation doctrine.
The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 241(6), granted the homeowners summary judgment dismissing that claim as against them, and denied Scott Bavosa Construction Corp. leave to amend its third-party answer.
The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against the homeowners and reversed the denial of Bavosa Corp.'s motion for leave to amend its answer to add an antisubrogation defense. It otherwise affirmed, including the denial of the plaintiff's own summary judgment motion.
The court found triable issues of fact as to whether the homeowners qualified for the homeowner exemption because the evidence about the mother-in-law's separate unit and integrated living arrangements was mixed. It also found unresolved fact issues on whether the saw had an available blade guard, defeating both the owners' dismissal motion and the plaintiff's liability motion. As to amendment, Bavosa Corp.'s proposed antisubrogation defense was potentially meritorious because its policy's employee-injury exclusion was subject to an insured-contract exception tied to its contractual indemnity promise.
Background
On November 3, 2016, Anthony Johnson, an employee of Scott Bavosa Construction Corp. (Bavosa Corp.), was working on a renovation project at property owned by Gerard and Catherine Cremoux. While using a table saw to cut masonite, the blade allegedly caught his glove and amputated multiple fingers on his left hand. Johnson sued, alleging among other claims a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and general contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations], based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.5, 23-1.12, and 23-9.2. The Cremoux defendants then brought a third-party claim against Bavosa Corp. for common-law indemnification. After the note of issue was filed, Johnson moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 241(6), the Cremoux defendants cross-moved to dismiss that claim, and Bavosa Corp. moved to amend its third-party answer to assert that the third-party complaint was barred by the antisubrogation doctrine.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Johnson's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, granted the Cremoux defendants summary judgment dismissing that claim against them on the basis of the homeowner exemption under Labor Law § 241 [applies to 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], and denied Bavosa Corp.'s motion for leave to amend its third-party answer.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order. It held that neither side had eliminated triable issues of fact on the homeowner exemption, because the evidence concerning whether the premises functioned as a one- or two-family dwelling was conflicting: although the mother-in-law occupied a separate floor with its own entrance, kitchen, and bathroom, testimony also showed she cooked for the Cremoux defendants, spent significant time in their unit, sometimes used their entrance, and paid no rent. The court further held that the Cremoux defendants failed to establish entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because the record did not conclusively show compliance with the Industrial Code provisions concerning the saw and blade guard. At the same time, Johnson was not entitled to summary judgment because Bavosa Corp. submitted affidavits from two disclosed employees stating that a blade guard was present and available for use, creating a factual dispute. Finally, the court held that Bavosa Corp. should have been allowed to amend its answer to add an antisubrogation defense, since the proposed defense was not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit in light of the policy's insured-contract exception and Bavosa Corp.'s contractual promise to indemnify the homeowners.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that the homeowner exemption under Labor Law § 241 is construed strictly and cannot support summary judgment where the property's residential character and family-unit arrangement are factually disputed. It also shows that conflicting evidence about the availability or use of safety devices, such as a table-saw blade guard, can defeat summary judgment for both plaintiff and defendant under Labor Law § 241(6). In addition, the ruling underscores New York's liberal standard for amendment of pleadings and recognizes that an antisubrogation defense may be viable where an employee-injury exclusion is overcome by an insured-contract exception tied to a contractor's indemnification agreement.
When a renovation-site injury case turns on the homeowner exemption and saw-safety compliance, mixed evidence will usually require a trial rather than summary judgment; and a contractor should generally be allowed to add an antisubrogation defense if its insurance policy may cover the contractual indemnity risk at issue.