Moreno v Hossain
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A construction injury dispute involving whether homeowners could invoke the one- and two-family dwelling exemption against claims under Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in certain activities, while exempting owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work] and Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in certain activities, while exempting owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work].
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as it dismissed those Labor Law claims and denied those branches of the defendants' motion.
The defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the homeowner's exemption applied, including whether the premises had a commercial purpose and whether the plaintiff's work was related to that commercial purpose.
Background
The plaintiff, an employee of A&A Home Improvement, Inc., alleged that he was injured in September 2017 while working at the defendants' property. He and his supervisor were removing a mirror from a wall in a second-floor rental apartment when the upper part of the mirror broke off and struck his hand. He sued the property owners for personal injuries, alleging, among other things, violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
Lower Court Decision
The lower court granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, effectively accepting their position that they were protected by the homeowner's exemption.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and denied summary judgment on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. The court held that factual issues remained regarding whether the property and the work served a commercial purpose, which would defeat the homeowner's exemption.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that the homeowner's exemption does not automatically apply to one- or two-family properties when the work is connected to a commercial objective, such as renovation for rental or resale. Where a property has both residential and commercial uses, the inquiry turns on the nature of the site, the purpose of the work, and the owners' intentions at the time of the injury.
Property owners seeking dismissal under the homeowner's exemption must conclusively show that the property and the injured worker's task were not tied to a commercial purpose; unresolved facts about rental use or other commercial intent will defeat summary judgment.