By this application, defendants, Deborah Galant and Paul Galant, seek an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff's causes of action for (a) violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) based on the statutory exemption for owners of single-family homes who contract for but do not direct or control the work (see Labor Law §§ 240, 241) and (b) for violations of Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence, because the defendants did not supervise any of the work or supply the plaintiff with tools.

This case arises out of a renovation project in which the defendants contracted with the third party defendant Zen General Construction and Renovation Corp. ("Zen"), to convert a multiple dwelling into a single family home located at 427 East 85th Street New York, NY. The plaintiff, an employee of Zen, was injured while cutting a beam with an electric saw that he knew was missing its protective shield. While cutting the beam, the saw bounced out of his hand, cut his chin and damaged four front teeth. The plaintiff commenced an action to recover under common law negligence and Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) and 200.

Plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 And 241 Causes Of Action

Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 exempt owners of one and two-family residences who contract for but do not direct or control the work, from liability for injuries to workers engaged in construction (Janowski v. Massoni, 276 AD2d 605, 606 [2d Dep't 2000]). Although plaintiff was injured while converting defendants' building from a multiple dwelling into a single family residence, the fact that at the time of injury the building was still classified as a multiple dwelling does not control (Stejskal et al. v. Simons, 309 AD2d 853, 855 [2d Dep't 2003]). Whether the exemption is available to an owner in a particular case turns on the site and purpose of the work (Cannon v. Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 650 [1990]). In the instant case, the defendants intended to occupy the premises as their home and the purpose of the work was to convert the building into a single family dwelling, not to enhance a commercial usage. As a matter of law the building is [*2]considered a single family dwelling for Labor Law purposes and the homeowner's exemption applies (See Khela v. Neiger, 85 NY2d 333, 338 [1995]).

Defendants may still be liable under the statute, however, if they directed or controlled the work (East Hills Construction Corp. v. Gabrielli, 274 AD2d 493 [2d Dep't 2000]). The phrase "direct or control" is construed strictly and refers to situations where "the owner supervises the method and manner of the work" (Kolakowski et al., v. Feeney, 204 AD2d 693 [2d Dep't 1994] quoting Rimoldi v. Schanzer, 147 AD2d 541, 545 [2d Dep't 1989]). Directing and controlling must be more than mere presence on the site; actual control is required (Brown v. New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 650 NYS2d [App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996]). Here, the plaintiff admits to following the orders of the supervisor designated by Zen, to seeing the owners in the building but not speaking to them and that the owners did not provide any of the tools used on the renovation project. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence that establishes the owners directed any of the work. The evidence merely establishes that the owners would check on the site. Because the defendants did not direct or control the work, the plaintiff does not state a cause of action against the defendants.