New York Law Watch
Labor Law and Construction Accidents
Construction-site injuries and workplace safety duties are filed here, including Law Watch decisions on Labor Law claims and responsibility among owners and contractors.
For Labor Law and Construction Accidents, Law Watch lists 46 indexable decisions dated February 5, 2026 to November 10, 2026 across 13 decision weeks.
51 decision records: 46 meet the substance floor; 5 records are held from search listings.
The records below come from 3 courts and include both primary and secondary area classifications.
Browse by year
Recent decisions
- Logrono v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06553
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court determined that the doorway constituted a passageway and the storage area a working area, satisfying the requirements of the applicable Industrial Code regulations.
- Volquez v Wade Hampton Apts., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06548
The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony regarding the saw’s defective guard and lack of protection raised triable issues of fact. The court determined that the plaintiff was not barred from recovery simply because he was not the operator of the circular saw that injured him.
- Thorobird Grand LLC et al. v M. Melnick & Co., Inc. et al.2026 NY Slip Op 06546
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for liquidated damages calculated on a per-building basis, holding that the construction contract limited such damages to the project as a whole. Additionally, the court ruled that the surety’s liability under the performance bond was capped at the general contractor’s contractual responsibilities, barring separate consequential damages.
- Sorto v SCI Funeral Servs. of N.Y., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06544
The court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim and the § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), but denied summary judgment on the § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) due to an issue of fact regarding the integral to work doctrine. Additionally, the court granted the defendant conditional contractual indemnification against the sub-subcontractor.
- DSSR Realty Corp v President Sai II, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06416
The court granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants were strictly liable for property damage caused by excavation under the New York City Building Code. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as time-barred because the property continued to sustain damages within the statutory period.
- Schmeisser v 685 First Realty Co., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06339
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because he failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) and (e)(1). The plaintiff’s own deposition testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the existence of a slippery condition and the duration of the tripping hazard.
- Rajpaulsingh v Hidden Pond at Old Westbury, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06337
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the defendant failed to establish it lacked the authority to supervise or control the work. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the construction manager acted as an agent of the owner or general contractor.
- Magpantay v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 06292
The court granted summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the failure to secure a falling object was a proximate cause of the injury. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) and § 200 claims due to triable issues of fact regarding the area’s exposure to falling objects and the defendants’ supervisory control.