Labor Law §§240 and 241 each exempt “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” The exemption was added in 1980 at the recommendation of the Law Revision Commission.

Both statutes can render the building owner liable even where the owner was blameless and even where the owner neither initiated nor was aware of the “construction work” that gave rise to the subject injuries. Sanatass v. Consol. Inv. Co., 10 N.Y.3d 333, 340 (2008). Such liability is based on “the apparent legislative policy determination that 'over-all compliance with safety standards would [best] be achieved by placing primary and inescapable responsibility on owners and general contractors rather than on their subcontractors' because of the former's greater interest in the project and often superior economic position.'” Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644, 649 (1990), quoting Haimes v. New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132, 136 (1978).

The Law Revision Commission felt that rationale was inapt in the archetypical case in which Joe or Jane Homeowner hires contractors to add a sun room or repair the roof. The Commission accordingly recommended that the statutes “'not apply to owners of one and two family homes who are not in a position to know about, or provide for the responsibilities of absolute liability.'” Cannon, 76 N.Y.2d at 649, quoting Recommendation of N.Y. Law Rev. Commn., reprinted in 1980 McKinney's Session Laws of N.Y., at 1658. The Legislature evidently agreed with that sentiment and the proposed exemption became law. L. 1980, c. 670.