Cadena v. Kupferstein

2025 NY Slip Op 03036 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · May 21, 2025 · No. Index No. 514045/20

Summary

This Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court order in a personal injury action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) after a carpenter was injured by a table saw at a residential renovation project. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the homeowner defendant, concluding he qualified for the statutory exemption because he did not direct or control the work. However, the court modified the order to reverse the dismissal of the claim against the general contractor, finding that material issues of fact remained regarding compliance with specific Industrial Code safety regulations.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Connolly, J.P.; Ford, W.G.; Voutsinas, H.; Ventura, L.M.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 21, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 514045/20
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (order dated April 20, 2023)
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Wilson Cadena v. Moses Kupferstein, et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

construction defectspersonal injurysummary judgmentappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

tortsconstruction lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the homeowner exemption in Labor Law §241(6) applies to the owner, Moses Kupferstein, and to BBM Construction Corp.
  2. Whether summary judgment was proper on liability under Labor Law §241(6) against Kupferstein and BBM.

Holdings

  1. The exemption applies because the premises is a one‑family residence and Kupferstein did not direct or control the work performed.
  2. The exemption does not apply to BBM Construction Corp.; the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim against BBM should be denied.
  3. Summary judgment was improper where triable issues of fact exist regarding compliance with the applicable Industrial Code provisions; thus the plaintiff’s motion should not have been denied against BBM and the defendants’ motion dismissing the claim against BBM should be denied.

Key quotations

Owners of one- or two-family dwellings are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 241(6) unless they directed or controlled the work being performed.
In order for a defendant to receive the protection of the homeowner's exemption, the defendant must show that (1) the premises consisted of a one- or two-family residence, and (2) the owner did not direct or control the work being performed.
The phrase "direct or control" is "construed strictly and refers to the situation where the owner supervises the method and manner of the work".

Factual background

The plaintiff, a carpenter employed by Molding Decor, Inc., was injured when a table‑saw blade cut off part of his finger while working on a renovation project at a one‑family residence owned by Moses Kupferstein. Kupferstein owned BBM Construction Corp., the general contractor that retained Molding Decor.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §241(6) and granted the defendants' motion dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appealed the order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…