CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farias v. Simon

This dissenting memorandum concerns the applicability of the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) in a personal injury case involving a workman. Defendants, Simon and Parry, owned a single-family home undergoing renovation where the plaintiff was injured. The dissent argues that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants, contending that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants intended to use the property for commercial purposes at the time of the accident. Evidence presented, such as the defendants never residing at the property, extensive renovations, and discussions about renting, casts doubt on their claim that commercial intent materialized only after the incident. The dissent advocates for reversing the summary judgment and allowing the issue of subjective intent to be resolved at trial.

Homeowners' exemptionLabor Law liabilityCommercial intentSummary judgmentCredibility determinationRenovation projectPlaintiff injuryEvidentiary disputeProperty useAppellate dissent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 03-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2014

Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs v. Falcon Pointe Community Homeowner's Association

This is an appeal initiated by homeowners Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs against Falcon Pointe Community Homeowners' Association. The dispute arose after the homeowners extended their fence's height without obtaining prior approval, violating the Association's rules. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, ruling that the

Homeowners' AssociationCovenant ViolationFence HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate BriefDeclaratory Judgment ActionDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Motion for ContinuanceRecusal MotionTrial Court Judgment
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dineen v. Rechichi

This case examines whether homeowners Daniel and Christine Rechichi are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) for injuries sustained by a carpenter, the plaintiff, while repairing a barn on their property. The accident occurred on June 17, 2003, before their single-family home was built, though they intended to construct one. The plaintiff sued for Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, applying the homeowner exemption because the barn was intended for residential storage as part of their future personal residence. The appellate court affirmed this decision, applying a flexible "site and purpose" test. They concluded that the homeowner exemption extends to property intended for a single-family residence, even when the dwelling has not yet been constructed, as long as an ancillary structure like a barn serves a residential purpose consistent with the homeowners' documented intent. The court found that the defendants' intent to build a home and use the barn for personal storage, combined with their actions to effectuate these plans, qualified them for the exemption.

homeowner exemptionLabor Lawliabilityresidential propertybarn constructionstatutory interpretationsite and purpose testappellate decisionsummary judgmentpersonal residence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1994

Lieberth v. Walden

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants, owners of a single-family dwelling, under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) for injuries sustained from a scaffold fall. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the homeowner's exemption. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion, concluding they were entitled to the exemption due to lack of direction or control over the work and found the Labor Law § 200 cause of action deficient. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the defendants' involvement in the construction, though meticulous, did not amount to supervising the method and manner of the work, thus upholding their entitlement to the homeowner's exemption.

homeowner's exemptionscaffold accidentLabor Law violationssummary judgmentconstruction injurypersonal injuryappellate reviewresidential constructionworker safetydegree of control
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Shamilian

Plaintiff Miguel Perez was injured after falling from a deck while working at a property owned by the defendants. The defendants sought to invoke the homeowner's exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court examined prior rulings from various Appellate Divisions in New York concerning the application of this exemption to properties used for commercial rental purposes. The court concluded that the defendants' property was used solely for income-producing purposes, thus constituting a commercial use. Consequently, the homeowner’s exemption was deemed inapplicable, leading to the denial of the defendants' motion and the granting of the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor LawHomeowner's ExemptionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCommercial RentalResidential PropertyAppellate PrecedentStare DecisisConstruction InjuryLiability
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06798 [131 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2015

Rossi v. Flying Horse Farm, Inc.

Troy Rossi, a horse groomer, sued Flying Horse Farm, Inc., for personal injuries sustained from a ladder fall at the defendant's commercial property, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted Rossi's motion to dismiss the defendant's homeowner's exemption defense and, sua sponte, dismissed the recalcitrant worker defense. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the homeowner's exemption, finding the property was primarily commercial and not a residence under the exemption. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by reinstating the recalcitrant worker defense. This modification was based on the Supreme Court's error in dismissing the defense sua sponte when the plaintiff had not moved for such relief.

Personal injuryLabor LawHomeowner's exemptionRecalcitrant worker defenseSummary judgmentAppellate procedureAffirmative defensesLadder fallCommercial propertyProperty owner liability
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05108 [140 AD3d 1102]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2016

Batzin v. Ferrone

Sergio Batzin, an appellant, sustained personal injuries while using a table saw during renovation work at a residential home owned by Dennis Ferrone. Batzin initiated legal action against Ferrone, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Ferrone sought summary judgment, asserting the homeowner's exemption, which the Supreme Court initially granted. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The court ruled that the homeowner's exemption does not apply to owners who undertake renovations for purely commercial purposes, such as intending to resell the property for profit. As Ferrone admitted to purchasing the home for renovation and resale, and did not reside there prior to the accident, the court found he failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to the exemption, requiring his credibility regarding intent to be resolved by a factfinder.

Homeowner's ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentRenovation WorkCommercial PurposeResidential PropertyIntent to ResellCredibilityTable Saw Accident
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 943 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational