Public Administrator of Kings County v. Barkdull

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Public Administrator of Kings County v. Barkdull

276 A.D.2d 767, 716 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10909

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 30, 2000·Published

Opinion

In.an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated February 4, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The exceptions to strict liability for owners of one- or two-family residences in Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) were “enacted to protect those people who, lacking business sophistication, would not know or anticipate the need to obtain insurance to cover them against the absolute liability” (Milan v Goldman, 254 AD2d 263, 264; see also, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 296; Van Amerogen v Donnini, 78 NY2d 880, 882). The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under the facts of this case, the defendants were entitled to the statutory exception (cf., Mandelos v Karavasidis, 86 NY2d 767). Ritter, J. P.,. Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In.an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated February 4, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The exceptions to strict liability for owners of one- or two-family residences in Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) were “enacted to protect those people who, lacking business sophistication, would not know or anticipate the need to obtain insurance to cover them against the absolute liability” (Milan v Goldman, 254 AD2d 263, 264; see also, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 296; Van Amerogen v Donnini, 78 NY2d 880, 882). The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under the facts of this case, the defendants were entitled to the statutory exception (cf., Mandelos v Karavasidis, 86 NY2d 767). Ritter, J. P.,. Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Public Administrator of Kings County v. Barkdull, 276 A.D.2d 767, 716 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 767 (Public Administrator of Kings County v. Barkdull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related