In his action alleging violations of Labor Laws and common-law negligence, the plaintiff (Joseph Capuzzi) claimed to have suffered personal injuries after falling approximately 14 feet while in the process of installing floor joists across the span of a concrete foundation in the defendant’s (Robert Fuller) new house.

“Before liability can be imposed,” according to Labor Law § 200, “it must be shown that [defendant] exercised supervisory control over the activity which brought about the injury"

And though “both Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 impose non-delegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents” vis-à-vis workers’ safety in construction-related activities, “the Legislature has carved out an exemption for the owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work."

In his affidavit, the plaintiff averred that he and the defendant routinely discussed work orders, logistics, materials, architectural drawings and a myriad of quotidian tasks and duties.

However, such evidence does not indicate that the defendant directed or controlled the manner of Mr. Capuzzi’s work.

Moreover, in his affidavit, Robert Fuller declared that while he visited the construction site, observed the progression of the work and paid Joseph Capuzzi, the defendant never exerted supervisory control over Mr. Capuzzi. Nor did the defendant dictate installation instructions re the floor joists or urge him to climb onto them as part of the process.

Fuller further averred that he was not present at the construction site when the alleged accident occurred and did not arrange for the use of equipment at the site.

Given each affidavit, it is clear that the homeowner's exemption is applicable to the defendant.

As a result, the Appellate Division, Third Department ruled that the lower court’s order be modified, reversing the denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint.