Fisher v. Coghlan

In this recent Fourth Department decision concerning Labor Law section 240(1), among other things, the Court held that a spousal relationship was not enough to place the defendant husband within the ambit of the homeowner exception to section 240(1). The plaintiff was injured when a scaffold collapsed while he was installing a roof on a one-family dwelling being constructed on premises that the defendant wife owned. The plaintiff commenced an action against the husband and wife pursuant to Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). In their Bill of Particulars, the defendants alleged that the husband acted as general contractor on his own and his wife’s behalf. The wife asserted in an affidavit that she considered the defendant husband to be an owner and also her agent.

The Court held that the defendant husband was not owner within the meaning of section 240(1) by virtue of his spousal relationship with the defendant wife. It stated: “The term ‘owner’ in sections 240(1) and 241(6) does not encompass a spousal relationship with the titleholder because that relationship does not create the requisite legal or beneficial interest in the property for purposes of those sections.” The Court quoted the Court of Appeals case Van Amerogen v. Donnini for the proposition that the statute should be narrowly interpreted because the legislative intent was to protect workers. [Note: The decision does not discuss whether the defendant wife owned the home before the marriage. The details of how the defendant wife was sole titleholder is not disucssed in the decision].

Noting that the defendant husband’s Bill of Particulars and deposition testimony established that he served as the general contractor and acted as agent for the defendant wife, the Court concluded that the defendant husband owed the duties imposed upon him by sections 240(1) and 241(6). The Court also held that Supreme Court erred on the defendants’ cross motion on the section 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. Citing Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. it dismissed those causes of action because the defendants established that the defendant husband did not supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that point.

For homeonwers to protect themselves against liability, the titleholder and only the titleholder should act as the general contractor of any work done to a one- or two- family dwelling. Presumably, even under this decision, real property held in tenancy by the entirety would qualify both spouses as the titleholder and, as such, the homeowner’s exception.