Reyes v Rahman
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/workplace safety under New York Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) [exempt owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work] and the scope of the homeowner’s exemption when the property may have a commercial purpose.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the homeowner’s exemption to Rahman and dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against him, and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on § 240(1).
The grant of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Rahman was reversed; those branches of Rahman’s motion were denied.
Rahman failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to applicability of the homeowner’s exemption, including whether the work related to a commercial purpose (e.g., renovation for resale or rental) and whether he intended to use the premises as a three-family dwelling; therefore he did not meet his initial burden for summary judgment.
Background
The plaintiff, a worker, fell when a ladder shifted while he was performing work at premises owned by Mohammad Rahman. The plaintiff sued for personal injuries, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Rahman asserted the homeowner’s exemption, claiming the property was a one- or two-family dwelling not used for commercial purposes.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County (Maldonado Cruz, J.), granted Rahman’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action on the ground that the homeowner’s exemption applied, and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on § 240(1).
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified, on the law: the portions of the order granting Rahman summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims are deleted and replaced with denials because Rahman failed to establish entitlement to the homeowner’s exemption as a matter of law, given unresolved factual issues about commercial purpose and intended use as a three-family dwelling. The denial of the plaintiff’s cross-motion on § 240(1) is affirmed because triable issues of fact remain regarding the exemption.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that the homeowner’s exemption turns on the nature of the site, the purpose of the work, and the owner’s intent at the time of the injury; when evidence suggests potential commercial use (e.g., renovation for resale/rental or conversion to a three-family dwelling), the exemption cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Owners seeking the exemption bear the initial burden to eliminate all triable issues of fact.
If there is evidence that a one- or two-family property was being renovated for commercial purposes or intended as a three-family dwelling, the homeowner’s exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) cannot be granted on summary judgment, and triable issues preclude summary relief for either party.