Ballard v. Beard

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed an order denying the defendant homeowner's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from renovation work. The court held that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether the defendant directed or controlled the injury-producing work, potentially defeating the one- and two-family dwelling exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Similar factual issues supported allowing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims to proceed.

Holdings

1. Defendant initially satisfied his prima facie burden of showing that the homeowner exemption applied, but plaintiff's opposing evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant directed or controlled the injury-producing work. Summary judgment was therefore properly denied.
2. Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because the evidence raised similar questions of fact concerning his control over the work and the injury-producing condition.
3. Defendant's argument that the open and obvious nature of the hole barred negligence liability was unpreserved because it was not adequately raised or supported before Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant established as a matter of law that the one- and two-family dwelling exemption relieved him of liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
2. Whether plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant directed or controlled the injury-producing work.
3. Whether defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.
4. Whether defendant's argument that the hole was open and obvious was preserved for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed