Call before the carrier calls you.
Three-year statute of limitations under CPLR §214(5). Ninety-day Notice of Claim against public-entity defendants under GML §50-e. Coverage applies regardless of union status, payment method, or immigration status.
- 3 years to file the personal-injury claim. Filed late, the case is dead on arrival.
- 90 days to serve a Notice of Claim against the New York City School Construction Authority, NYCHA, MTA, or the Port Authority.
- Workers' comp doesn't bar a third-party Labor Law lawsuit. The two systems run in parallel.
Labor Law §240(1), the absolute-liability statute.
Owners and general contractors are subject to absolute liability when a worker is injured by an elevation-related hazard and the safety devices required by the statute were missing or broken.
That phrase, absolute liability, means the defense doesn't get to argue you were careless. Comparative fault is not a defense to §240. The carrier's adjuster will not tell you that. Your boss will not tell you that. The statute does. N.Y. Labor Law §240(1) →
The Court of Appeals has read the protected class broadly. Subway tunnels, bridges, garages, even boats have qualified as "structures" for §240 purposes (Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 1998).
Falling worker vs. falling object.
Section 240 covers both. Pre-2011, defendants escaped falling-object cases when the object started near the worker's level. Wilinski closed that loophole.
- Falling worker. Off a ladder, scaffold, hoist, roof, or unprotected edge.
- Falling object. Tool, debris, or unsecured material that should have been tied off. Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1 (2011), set the modern rule.
Sole proximate cause and recalcitrant worker.
Both narrow. Both rare. The defense has to prove the safety device was right there, the worker knew it was there, the worker chose for no good reason not to use it, and the worker would not have been hurt if they had.
That's a hard hill to climb. Most §240 defenses fail at trial. Bonczar v. American Multi-Cinema, 38 N.Y.3d 1023 (2022), is the recent example where the defense won on a ladder. The exception that proves the rule.
§241(6) imports the Industrial Code.
A specific Industrial Code violation becomes negligence per se. Unlike §240, comparative fault applies. We plead §241(6) alongside §240 whenever the facts support it.
The provisions that come up most: 23-1.7 (general hazards), 23-1.13 (electrocution), 23-1.21 (ladders), 23-5 (scaffolding), 23-6 (material hoisting), 23-4 (excavation). 12 NYCRR Part 23 →
Under Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993), the regulation has to be specific. Generic safety language doesn't qualify.
§200, the common-law duty of care.
The catch-all. Common-law negligence with notice and reasonable care. Where §240 covers heights and §241(6) covers Code violations, §200 covers everything else on the job site.
We typically plead all three. §240 as the absolute-liability lead, §241(6) as the Industrial Code backup, §200 as the catch-all. Different theories appeal to different judges, juries, and mediators. Pleading all three keeps options open through summary judgment, mediation, and trial.
§240 vs. §241(6) vs. §200, side by side.
Three statutes, three liability standards. We plead all three when facts allow because they fail and succeed against different defendants for different reasons.
| Statute | Standard | Comparative Fault | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| §240(1) | Absolute liability for elevation-related hazards. | Not a defense. | Falls. Falling objects. Height-related cases. |
| §241(6) | Negligence per se via Industrial Code. | Available as a defense. | Trip, slip, electrical, debris, trench, equipment cases. |
| §200 | Common-law negligence with notice. | Available as a defense. | Premises-condition cases not covered by §240 or §241(6). |
Types of construction accidents I handle.
The fact patterns that come up most often. Each carries its own §240 / §241 framework, its own Industrial Code provisions, and its own settlement-arc playbook.
- Scaffold collapses and unsecured plank failures.
- Ladder falls (A-frame, extension, fixed). The Bonczar defense surfaces here.
- Falling-object strikes from upper floors, lifts, or façade work.
- Trench collapses and unshored excavation.
- Crane and hoist failures.
- Electrocution and arc-flash injuries.
- Demolition collapses and structural failures.
- Roofer falls including skylights and unguarded edges.
- Window-washer and façade-restoration falls.
- Falling debris striking pedestrians on Queens sidewalks.
Workforce categories.
The Labor Law was written to protect workers, not to test their paperwork. Coverage applies regardless of union status, payment structure, or immigration status.
- Non-union workers. Most of my construction caseload. Coverage under §240 and §241(6) is identical to union work.
- Day laborers, 1099, cash-paid. The statute doesn't require a W-2. The relevant question is whether the worker was engaged in covered work.
- Undocumented workers. Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (2006), holds that immigration status does not bar a Labor Law recovery, including lost-earnings damages.
- NYC school construction. Cases against the New York City School Construction Authority, with a 90-day Notice of Claim under GML §50-e.
- NYCHA, MTA, and Port Authority. Public-entity defendants with shorter pre-suit deadlines and statutory hearing requirements.
- Weather-related falls. Snow, ice, and rain on unprotected scaffolds and roofs are routinely §240 cases when the safety devices required by the statute would have prevented the fall.
How I build a Labor Law case for full damages.
Liability is half the case. Damages are the other half, and where most plaintiff's lawyers either get the work right or leave money on the table.
The investments I make in the case file:
- Life-care plan. A board-certified nurse life-care planner quantifies future medical costs over the worker's lifetime, line by line. Without one, the future-medicals number is a guess.
- Forensic economist. Lost-earnings projections, including lost benefits and household services, in present-value dollars. Survives appellate review better than pain-and-suffering numbers.
- Treating-physician deposition prep. Treating doctors are credible to juries when prepared, and routinely outperform retained experts at trial.
- Day-in-the-life video. When the injury is severe, a 6-8 minute video at home and in therapy reframes the damages number for the mediator.
How the Brooklyn case actually moved.
Twenty-four months from incident to settlement. The deadlines, the motion, the mediation, the wire transfer. Not theory.
- DAY 0Incident on siteWindow guards stacked unsecured on a contractor truck tipped during unloading. Severe knee injury.
- DAY 1Carrier outreach declinedRecorded statement requested. Retainer signed the next morning.
- DAY 10Site inspectionPhotographs, OSHA records, sign-in sheets, witness contacts secured.
- DAY 31Notice of Claim filedInside the 90-day GML §50-e window for the SCA defendant.
- DAY 240Summons and complaintFiled within CPLR §214(5). Discovery commenced.
- MO. 14CPLR §3212 motionSummary judgment on §240 liability. Granted.
- MO. 18In-court mediationInitial settlement offer judged inadequate.
- MO. 22Private mediationRetired Supreme Court justice. Structured offer with Medicaid set-aside.
- MO. 24Settlement: $2,000,000Comp lien negotiated. Net distribution to client and family.
Hard deadlines you cannot miss.
Construction Labor Law cases live or die by deadlines. Public defendants have shorter clocks than private. Federal sites have their own.
- 3 years general personal-injury statute of limitations against private defendants. CPLR §214(5).
- 90 days to serve a Notice of Claim against the City of New York, NYCHA, NYC DOE / SCA, or the Court of Claims. GML §50-e.
- 1 year + 90 days to file the lawsuit itself against the City after the Notice of Claim.
- Federal sites trigger Federal Tort Claims Act administrative-claim deadlines. Different track entirely.
Workers' comp and a Labor Law lawsuit, in parallel.
Two separate systems, both running at once. Workers' comp pays immediate medical and a portion of lost wages from your employer's carrier. The Labor Law lawsuit pays the rest, including pain and suffering and full lost earnings.
Filing one does not stop the other. The comp carrier asserts a lien on the third-party recovery for benefits already paid. Negotiating that lien down is part of the case. Most serious construction injuries involve both systems running side by side.
Recent verdicts and settlements.
Three representative outcomes. Each ran the §240 / §241(6) framework, each settled rather than tried. Read the case studies for the full procedural arc.
- $2,000,000 Brooklyn DOE school construction (Labor Law §240, falling-object case)
- $1,500,000 NYC sanitation worker line-of-duty premises case
- $900,000 Queens construction fence, three-defendant premises overlap
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Common questions.
Labor Law §240(1) (the 'Scaffold Law') imposes absolute liability on property owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries to construction workers, falls from scaffolds, ladders, roofs, or being struck by falling objects. The protection applies to construction, demolition, and repair workers regardless of union membership, day-laborer status, or immigration status under Balbuena v. IDR Realty, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (2006).
No. Workers' Compensation bars suing your direct employer, but §240 lets you sue the property owner and the general contractor, who are usually not your employer. Two recoveries can run in parallel: the comp claim with your employer's carrier and the §240 lawsuit. We negotiate the comp lien at settlement so your net is maximized.
§241(6) covers construction, demolition, and excavation work generally, requiring compliance with specific Industrial Code rules at 12 NYCRR Part 23, debris management, fall protection, electrical safety. §240 is the absolute-liability scaffold law; §241(6) covers other site hazards that are not gravity-related falls. Most cases plead both.
Yes. Under Balbuena v. IDR Realty, undocumented workers retain full tort and Labor Law rights, including lost-earnings damages calculated at U.S. wage rates. Immigration status is generally shielded from civil discovery under the Protect Our Courts Act and is not disclosed in tort cases. Cash-paid and 1099 workers are covered the same as W-2 workers.
Three years from the date of injury under CPLR §214(5). If the property owner is a public entity (NYC School Construction Authority, NYCHA, a municipal building), a 90-day Notice of Claim under General Municipal Law §50-e is required, and the lawsuit must be filed within one year and 90 days.
It depends on the injury and the damages workup. Mid-tier §240 cases in NY commonly resolve between $500,000 and $3,000,000; catastrophic cases (paralysis, severe TBI, amputation) settle for significantly more. Our $2,000,000 Brooklyn case was a knee injury requiring surgery, a life-care plan, and an economist's wage-loss workup. The Brooklyn jurisdiction, the §240 summary judgment, and the damages case together moved the carrier from a $150,000 opening offer. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Generally no. The Protect Our Courts Act shields civil litigants from immigration-status discovery, and New York courts routinely deny defense requests for status information when irrelevant to the case. We have represented undocumented clients on Labor Law cases without status ever coming up at deposition or trial.
Free consultation. No fee unless we win.
Call 718-261-0546 or use the form. I answer my own phone during business hours, and the answering service patches urgent calls through after hours.
Twenty-two years on these cases. Boutique New York City practice with a real team behind it. Bilingual concierge on staff. Hablamos español. Arabic spoken on request.