BASEM KHELA ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. AARON NEIGER, DEFENDANT, v. A.T.G.
CONSTRUCTION, INC., THIRD-PARTY APPELLANT, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
85 N.Y.2d 333, 648 N.E.2d 1329, 624 N.Y.S.2d 566 (1995).
March 30, 1995
2 No. 41 (1995 NY Int. 071)
Decided March 30, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
David B. Hamm, for Appellant.
Alexander J. Wulwick, for Respondents.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
By this appeal we are asked to determine whether the exemption
specified in Labor Law § 241 for owners of one- and two-family
dwellings applies to section 241-a (which has no express exemption),
and we are asked to determine this legal question in a case where a
three-family dwelling was being converted to a two-family dwelling. We
conclude that the owner is entitled to the exemption.
Defendant Aaron Neiger purchased a three-story building in Brooklyn
containing three apartments, one on each floor, which was covered by a
multiple-dwelling certificate of occupancy. Before moving in, Neiger
obtained approval for alteration of the building and contracted with
A.T.G. Construction to convert the building to a two-family dwelling
including construction of a three-story wing on vacant property
adjacent to the building. A.T.G. was obligated, once the construction
was complete, to obtain a new certificate of occupancy. Neiger planned
to reside with his family on the two upper floors while renting the
ground floor to a tenant.
Plaintiff Basem Khela, employed by A.T.G., was working on the third
floor of the newly constructed wing near an open area where stairwells
were to be added. A plank covered the open stairwell area on the third
floor, but there was no covering for that area on the second floor.
When Khela walked across the plank on the third floor, it broke and he
fell through the second floor, where there was no planking, to the
first floor, sustaining serious injuries.
Khela and his wife sought damages against Neiger, and Neiger filed a
third-party complaint against A.T.G. After the trial court determined
SNIPPETS:
BASEM KHELA ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. AARON NEIGER, DEFENDANT, v. A.T.G. CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
By this appeal we are asked to determine whether the exemption specified in Labor Law § 241
Defendant Aaron Neiger purchased a three-story building in Brooklyn containing three
Neiger obtained approval for alteration of the building and contracted with A.T.G.
Neiger planned to reside with his family on the two upper floors while renting the ground
Plaintiff Basem Khela, employed by A.T.G., was working on the third floor of the newly
When Khela walked across the plank on the third floor, it broke and he fell through the
Khela and his wife sought damages against Neiger, and Neiger filed a third-party complaint
The trial court granted defendant's motion, reading the homeowner's exemption into section
Plaintiffs thereafter obtained a judgment against defendant, who in turn obtained a judgment
We now reverse.
Labor Law § 241 requires that "ll contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of
First, as a matter of statutory interpretation, sections relating to the same subject matter
Section 241-a sets out only a general safety standard, without naming the persons governed by
The intention was to make the law fairer and more reflective of the practical realities (see
Indeed, because section 241-a does not in the first instance specify the persons to whom the
The determination whether the exemption is available to an owner in a particular case turns
The case must therefore be remitted to Supreme Court for such further proceedings as may be
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
