Maintaining the Homeowner’s Exemption Despite Unity of Ownership:
Cadena v. Kupferstein (2025) and the Scope of “Direction or Control” under Labor Law § 241(6)

Introduction

Cadena v. Kupferstein, 238 A.D.3d 973 (2d Dep’t 2025), presented the Appellate Division with a familiar yet increasingly intricate question: when may a homeowner who is simultaneously the principal of the project’s general contractor lose the protective “homeowner’s exemption” embodied in New York Labor Law § 241(6)? The plaintiff, Wilson Cadena, a carpenter whose finger was partially severed by a table-saw blade during a residential renovation, sued both the homeowner, Moses Kupferstein, and Kupferstein’s construction company, BBM Construction Corp. (“BBM”). After cross-motions for summary judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The Second Department reversed in part, carving out a clear doctrinal boundary:

• The owner of a one-family residence retains the homeowner’s exemption unless he or she actually supervises the “method and manner” of the work—even if that owner is the sole shareholder of the general contractor.
• Conversely, the general contractor remains potentially liable for industrial-code violations under § 241(6) where triable facts exist as to the availability of safety devices.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the § 241(6) claim against Kupferstein personally, holding that the homeowner’s exemption applied because the property was a single-family residence and the record showed no “direction or control” by the owner over the carpenter’s precise work methods.
2. The Court reinstated the § 241(6) claim against BBM. Defendants had failed to eliminate issues of fact concerning whether the table-saw guard mandated by 12 NYCRR §§ 23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.12(c) and 23-9.2(a) was missing or unavailable.
3. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment against BBM was correctly denied because the owner’s affidavit raised bona-fide questions about the existence of a guard in the saw’s storage compartment.

Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Affri v. Basch, 13 N.Y.3d 592 (2009) – Definitively held that “direction or control” demands supervision of the method and manner of work, not mere aesthetic oversight. (Relied upon to insulate Kupferstein despite his business role.)
• Parrino v. Rauert, 208 A.D.3d 672 (2022); Marquez v. Mascioscia, 165 A.D.3d 912 (2018) – Restated the two-prong test for invoking the homeowner’s exemption. The Court applied both prongs.
• Miller v. Shah, 3 A.D.3d 521 (2004) – Provided the strict construction of “direction or control.” The decision echoes this line’s reasoning.
• Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 N.Y.3d 511 (2009) – Affirmed that § 241(6) liability requires breach of a specific industrial-code provision. Guided the Court’s focus on §§ 23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.12(c), 23-9.2(a).
• Winegrad v. N.Y.U. Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985) – Stands for the axiom that a movant’s failure to meet its prima-facie burden mandates denial irrespective of the opponent’s papers; used to deny BBM’s motion.
• Additional supportive authorities: Hicks v. Aibani (2018), Chowdhury v. Rodriguez (2008), among others, reinforcing homeowner-exemption jurisprudence.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Homeowner’s Exemption: The property was undisputedly a single-family dwelling. The Court scrutinized deposition testimony and found that Kupferstein’s involvement was limited to high-level or aesthetic direction—e.g., approving finishes, selecting fixtures—none of which equates to supervising how a carpenter cuts lumber. Despite his 100% ownership of BBM, corporate and personal hats remain doctrinally distinct; mere corporate overlap does not dissolve the exemption.

b. Prima-Facie Burdens on Summary Judgment: To dismiss, BBM had to show no violation of the cited regulations. While defendants supplied a photo purporting to depict a guard in a storage tray, the plaintiff testified no guard was attached or available. Conflicting evidence on a material fact compelled the Court to reinstate the claim. By contrast, plaintiff’s own motion faltered because the same factual dispute precluded a finding of liability as a matter of law.

c. Feigned-Issue Doctrine: The plaintiff argued that Kupferstein’s affidavit contradicted his deposition and should be disregarded. The Court disagreed, applying Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, 27 N.Y.3d 1048 (2016), which requires “direct inconsistency” before striking an affidavit. Here, no such inconsistency was found.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Clarifies Corporate Overlap: Owners who are also corporate principals can remain immune under § 241(6) if they avoid hands-on supervision. This cements a practical roadmap for self-developing homeowners.
• Re-emphasizes Safety-Device Availability: General contractors cannot rely merely on “storage presence” photos; courts will scrutinize whether the device was in use or readily accessible.
• Lowers Evidentiary Threshold for Plaintiffs: An unequivocal statement that “no guard was available” can defeat a contractor’s motion, pushing cases to trial or settlement.
• Strategic Litigation Effect: Defense counsel must segregate homeowner and contractor defenses, while plaintiffs may tailor discovery to pierce the exemption by proving active supervision.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Homeowner’s Exemption – A statutory shield allowing owners of one- or two-family homes to avoid liability under § 241(6), unless they actively supervise how the work is performed.
• Direction or Control – Hands-on instruction about how to do the work (methods, safety, sequencing). Telling a painter to “use blue paint” is aesthetic and safe; showing him which ladder rung to stand on is direction.
• Summary Judgment – A pre-trial mechanism where the moving party must prove there is no genuine dispute on any material fact; failure = automatic denial.
• Nondelegable Duty – An obligation that cannot be shifted to others; both owners (unless exempt) and general contractors owe workers a safe environment under § 241(6).
• Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) – Detailed safety regulations for construction work; violation of a specific, applicable provision can trigger § 241(6) liability.
• Feigned Issue of Fact – A post-deposition affidavit contradicting prior testimony may be ignored, but only if the contradiction is “direct and unequivocal.”

Conclusion

Cadena v. Kupferstein reinforces a nuanced but critical distinction in New York construction-injury litigation: a homeowner who happens also to own the project’s general-contracting corporation can still enjoy the homeowner’s exemption—unless his conduct crosses the line into supervision of the work’s method and manner. At the same time, the decision underscores the robust, nondelegable nature of a general contractor’s duty to comply with the Industrial Code. Fact-specific questions about missing safety equipment will almost always defeat dispositive motions. Going forward, practitioners should expect heightened scrutiny of evidence surrounding “direction or control” and safety-device availability, while owners who wish to maintain statutory immunity must consciously limit their involvement to high-level or aesthetic decisions.

© 2025 Analysis by AI Legal Commentary. All rights reserved.