ROTHMAN v. SHALJIAN

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he fell from a ladder on the appellants' property while working on a renovation project.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based upon Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against them. Owners and contractors are subject to strict liability pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), except owners of one-and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work. The exception was enacted to protect those who, lacking business sophistication, would not know or anticipate the need to obtain insurance to cover them against absolute liability (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290; Van Amerogen v. Donnini, 78 N.Y.2d 880, 882; Milan v. Goldman, 254 A.D.2d 263). We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the appellants exercised the requisite degree of direction and control over the renovation of their home to impose liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) (see, Krukowski v. Steffensen, 194 A.D.2d 179; cf., Bartoo v. Buell, 87 N.Y.2d 362; Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644; Milan v. Goldman, supra; Rimoldi v. Schanzer, 147 A.D.2d 541).