FREEMAN v. Timothy R. Ryan, Edward E. May and Kathleen M. May, Defendants-Appellants. (2006)

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he fell from a scaffolding that collapsed while he was performing construction or renovation work.   The work was being performed on a two-family dwelling that had been damaged by fire and that was owned by Timothy R. Ryan, Edward E. May and Kathleen M. May (defendants).   We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against those defendants, thereby implicitly determining as a matter of law that they are not entitled to the benefit of the homeowner exemption set forth in the statute.   The record establishes that, for the seven or eight years preceding the fire, defendants had used the property exclusively for commercial purposes, i.e., as rental property;  that the fire had rendered the premises unoccupied and indeed uninhabitable for the duration of the work;  that defendants had contracted for that work for the explicit purpose of renovating the house for sale to a third party;  and that defendants had sold the house upon the completion of the work.   Under those circumstances, defendants are not entitled to the benefit of the homeowner exemption (see Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 296-297, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117;  Van Amerogen v. Donnini, 78 N.Y.2d 880, 882-883, 573 N.Y.S.2d 443, 577 N.E.2d 1035;  see also Morgan v. Rosselli, 23 A.D.3d 356, 356-357, 804 N.Y.S.2d 763;  Greenman v. Page, 4 A.D.3d 752, 753-754, 772 N.Y.S.2d 439;  Sweeney v. Sanvidge, 271 A.D.2d 733, 734-735, 705 N.Y.S.2d 723, lv. dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 931, 721 N.Y.S.2d 606, 744 N.E.2d 142).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: