Bruce v. Lawrence
| Citation | 756 N.Y.S.2d 635,303 A.D.2d 616 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Decision Date | 24 March 2003 |
| Parties | MATTHEW BRUCE, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>JANET LAWRENCE et al., Respondents. |
Ordered that the order dated June 27, 2002, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further Ordered that the caption is amended to add Clifford Smith as a defendant.
When an owner of a one- or two-family dwelling contracts for work that directly relates to the residential uses of the home, even if the work also serves a commercial purpose, that owner is shielded by the homeowner exemption from the absolute liability of Labor Law § 240 (see Bartoo v Buell, 87 NY2d 362, 368 [1996]). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined, inter alia, that there are triable issues of fact as to whether the work directly related to the residential use of the home, even if the work also served a commercial purpose (see Bartoo v Buell, supra; Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644 [1990]). Moreover, the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew was properly denied since he failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not submitting the additional facts when the original motion and cross motion were made (see Waldman v Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 289 AD2d 399 [2001]).
However, contrary to the defendants' contention, there is evidence that the defendant Clifford Smith, the husband of the defendant Janet Lawrence, maintained a degree of control over the work being performed on the property, which was owned by Lawrence. There was evidence that Smith was acting as Lawrence's agent when he directed the plaintiff to save certain beams by working on the roof, and directed him to cut the beams at the ends so that they could be reused. In fact, the plaintiff averred that Smith provided him with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pizarro v. Lignelli
...v. Biordi, 105 A.D.3d at 492; Westgate v. Broderick, 107 A.D.3d at 1390; Fisher v. Coqhlan, 8 A.D.3d at975. See Bruce v. Lawrence, 303 A.D.2d 616, 617 (2d Dep't 2003). A. Permissible Claims Plaintiff's affidavit regarding Catherine Lignelli's supervision and direction of work at the constru......
-
Abdou v. Rampaul
...under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) (see Van Blerkom v. America Painting, LLC, 120 A.D.3d 660, 662, 992 N.Y.S.2d 52 ; Bruce v. Lawrence, 303 A.D.2d 616, 617, 756 N.Y.S.2d 635 ). To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or the common law in a case such as this, where the claim arises o......
- Furrukh v. Forest Hills Hosp.
-
Dutchess Truck Repair, Inc. v. Boyce
...the action by proffering “a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action” (Blackwell v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 303 A.D.2d at 616, 756 N.Y.S.2d 769; see Sharpe v. Osorio, 21 A.D.3d 467, 468, 800 N.Y.S.2d 213). Accordingly, the court properly granted that branch of the de......