In addition, "'[o]wners of one- or two-family dwellings are exempt from liability under [Labor Law § 240(1)] unless they directed or controlled the work being performed'" (Bulux v Moran, 189 A.D.3d 761, 762, quoting Salgado v Rubin, 183 A.D.3d 617, 618; see Szczepanski v Dandrea Constr. Corp., 90 A.D.3d 642, 643). "'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'" (Bulux v Moran, 189 A.D.3d at 762, quoting Acosta v Hadjigavriel, 18 A.D.3d 406, 406; see Pavon v Koral, 113 A.D.3d 830, 831).
The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals. Owners of one- or two-family dwellings are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 241(6) unless they directed or controlled the work being performed (seeBulux v. Moran, 189 A.D.3d 761, 762, 135 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Salgado v. Rubin, 183 A.D.3d 617, 618, 123 N.Y.S.3d 153 ). The phrase "direct or control," as used in Labor Law § 241(6), "is construed strictly and refers to the situation where the owner supervises the method and manner of the work" ( Bulux v. Moran, 189 A.D.3d at 762, 135 N.Y.S.3d 148 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeSalgado v. Rubin, 183 A.D.3d at 618, 123 N.Y.S.3d 153 ; Lazo v. Ricci, 178 A.D.3d 811, 811–812, 115 N.Y.S.3d 424 ). "[I]n ascertaining whether a particular homeowner's actions amount to direction or control of a project, the relevant inquiry is the degree to which the owner supervised the method and manner of the actual work being performed by the injured employee" ( Rajkumar v. Lal, 170 A.D.3d 761, 762, 95 N.Y.S.3d 267 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeWadlowski v. Cohen, 150 A.D.3d 930, 931, 55 N.Y.S.3d 279 ).
Based on such contractual provisions, and witness testimony from Turner, there is a question of fact of whether Turner "had the authority to supervise or control the means and methods" of the work that resulted in the removal of the floor tile and failure to have it timely replaced or protected with a cone. See Bulux v. Moran, 189 A.D.3d 761 (2d Dep't 2020).
The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals. Owners of one- or two-family dwellings are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 241(6) unless they directed or controlled the work being performed (see Bulux v Moran, 189 A.D.3d 761, 762; Salgado v Rubin, 183 A.D.3d 617, 618). The phrase "direct or control," as used in Labor Law § 241(6), "is construed strictly and refers to the situation where the owner supervises the method and manner of the work" (Bulux v Moran, 189 A.D.3d at 762 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Salgado v Rubin, 183 A.D.3d at 618; Lazo v Ricci, 178 A.D.3d 811, 811-812).