New York Law Watch
Labor Law and Construction Accidents: 2026 decisions
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, 2026 decisions, 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.
Week ending November 14, 2026
Browse the week ending November 14, 2026
- 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.
Week ending November 7, 2026
Browse the week ending November 7, 2026
- 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.
Week ending October 31, 2026
Browse the week ending October 31, 2026
- 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.
- Killerlane v Meagher & Meagher, P.C.2026 NY Slip Op 06288
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract and violations of Labor Law article 6. The court further determined that the alleged oral agreement regarding referral fees was not barred by the statute of frauds.
- Oliveira v 5462th Realty LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06254
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the plaintiff was struck by a falling beam and that the defendants failed to provide appropriate safety devices. The court determined that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of the accident or the adequacy of safety measures.
Week ending October 24, 2026
Browse the week ending October 24, 2026
- Torres v Tinton Realty Group LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06233
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant because triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendant acted as the general contractor. However, the court modified the order to grant summary judgment dismissing the property owner’s cross-claims for common-law indemnification and contribution against the defendant.
- Nunez v Hispanic Socy. of Am.2026 NY Slip Op 06206
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because he was working on an elevated work site without adequate safety devices. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
- Liao v Sheng Sheng Constr., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06107
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because the plaintiff demonstrated that a falling post required securing for the undertaking and was not adequately secured. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the risk or the proximate cause of the injury.
- Evaristo v GH 441 1st Fee, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06098
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court held that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding statutory violation or the plaintiff’s sole proximate cause of injury.
- Da Silva v Delshah-OTL-Start 22 Chapel Prop. Owner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06094
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding their authority to supervise the work and their constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code violations, finding the cited regulations inapplicable to the facts.
- Buitrago v Cascade 553, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06087
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The court found that while the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the falling plywood required securing.
- Bolanos v 50 Clinton Property Owner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06086
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a hazard and the failure to secure a scaffold cross brace. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the injury.
- Stabile v Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06078
The Supreme Court properly granted class certification because the worker affirmations sufficiently demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominated regarding the systematic failure to pay prevailing wages. The court held that individualized determinations of whether specific landscaping tasks constituted construction-like labor do not defeat commonality at the certification stage.
- Mema v Procida Constr. Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06066
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because the defendant failed to establish a lack of supervisory control. However, it reversed the grant of partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony regarding a wet floor created a triable issue of fact regarding causation.
- Gonzalez v Chatsworth Bldrs. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06063
The court modified the lower court’s order to deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding the occurrence of the accident and the causal relationship of the injuries. The defendants’ evidence, including witness statements and expert medical opinions, was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Week ending October 17, 2026
Browse the week ending October 17, 2026
- Latazela v Compass Six Owner LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06009
The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding that the plaintiff’s fall from a moving scaffold without proper anchor points or guardrails established a prima facie case. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries or that expert biomechanical evidence raised a triable issue of fact.
- Soutar v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05986
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding the defendants failed to raise a triable issue regarding the ladder’s security or a recalcitrant worker defense. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, as the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the relevant regulations were inapplicable or that they lacked control over the work site.
- Neil v Areeba, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05963
The court reversed the denial of leave to amend the complaint to add a Labor Law § 200 claim, finding it was not palpably insufficient. However, the court affirmed the denial of leave to add a Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the plaintiff’s duties as a porter did not involve the erection or demolition of a structure.
- Hidalgo v R.R. 590 Oak Family Limited Partnership2026 NY Slip Op 05943
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the defendants established that the injury was not the result of an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the falling glass was caused by the absence or inadequacy of a safety device prescribed by the statute.
- Hernandez v Board of Mgrs. of the NOMA Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 05942
The court affirmed summary judgment on liability for Labor Law § 240(1) violations, finding the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices for elevated work. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6) and third-party claims, as triable issues of fact remained regarding statutory violations and contractual compliance.
- CFS Enterprises, Inc. v CG & J Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05929
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate a mechanic’s lien bond because the defendant failed to strictly comply with the service requirements of Lien Law § 59. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that the defendant’s appeal was not frivolous.
- Alexim Holdings, LLC v Chang-Wardi2026 NY Slip Op 05924
The court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim because a valid contract governed the subject matter, but reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim. The court held that injunctive relief was inappropriate because the builder’s injury could be adequately compensated by money damages.
- Mitchell v Pullman SST, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05912
The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from efforts to prevent a heavy beam from falling, which constitutes a covered gravity-related risk. The court also rejected the defendants’ sole proximate cause defense, determining that the plaintiff’s instruction to stop lifting was consistent with established company practice.
- De Souza v 4720 Third Ave LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05905
The court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that he fell from an unsecured ladder and that his alleged negligence did not bar recovery. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim as academic in light of the summary judgment determination on the § 240(1) claim.
Week ending October 10, 2026
Browse the week ending October 10, 2026
- Robles v Fordham Valentine Assoc. LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05867
The court modified the lower court’s order to grant summary judgment dismissing the cross-claim for contribution and common-law indemnification as abandoned, while affirming the denial of summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim. The court found that factual issues remained regarding whether the plaintiff’s injury arose out of the carpentry work, potentially triggering the indemnification clause.
- Nunez v 672 Parkside, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05801
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because the hazards were inherent to the work he was performing. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code violations as the debris was an integral part of the work.
- Laignelet v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05777
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendant established it did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the property where the accident occurred. Consequently, the defendant owed no duty of care under common law or Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
Week ending September 26, 2026
Browse the week ending September 26, 2026
- Rojas v Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05432
The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the unsecured ladder shifted, causing the fall. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the school district on the contractual indemnification claim because it was not a party to the relevant agreement.
- Veliu v Verizon N.Y. Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05374
The court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding how the injury occurred and whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause by failing to use available safety devices. The majority determined that the conflicting accounts of the accident and the plaintiff’s potential knowledge of available lumber braces precluded summary judgment.
- Martinez v 56th Realty LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05373
The Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgment on the owner’s cross-claim for contractual indemnification because there was an issue of fact regarding whether the owner’s agents were negligent. Under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1(1), indemnification agreements are unenforceable to the extent they cover liability contributed to by the negligence of the promisee’s agents.
- Berardi v 900 Third Ave., L.P.2026 NY Slip Op 05370
The court affirmed summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding that the general contractor and owner were liable for a tripping hazard created by an inadequately secured tarp in a passageway. The court rejected defenses based on lack of notice, the integral-to-the-work doctrine, and the plaintiff’s alleged sole proximate cause.
Week ending September 19, 2026
Browse the week ending September 19, 2026
- Hearns v Blended Family LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05367
The court held that a telecommunications worker installing Wi-Fi services is not a covered employee under Public Service Law § 228, but the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly dismissed because drilling holes to run cable did not constitute a significant physical alteration of the building. Additionally, the court affirmed conditional contractual indemnification in favor of the property owner against the tenant.
- Matter of Broadway PT 1710 LLC v Kingdom Assoc. Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05365
The Appellate Division reversed the summary discharge of a mechanic’s lien because the petitioner failed to identify any defect appearing on the face of the notice of lien, as required by Lien Law § 19(6). The court held that disputes regarding the validity of the lien, such as lack of consent, must await trial of the foreclosure action rather than being resolved in a summary discharge proceeding.
- Nunez v Trustees of Columbia Univ.2026 NY Slip Op 05319
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240(1) by showing the ladder moved for no apparent reason. The court determined that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion.
- Jacobs v March Constr./Consulting2026 NY Slip Op 05292
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims because the defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injuries. The court found that evidence of a marked, secured cover and instructions not to touch construction material were sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of liability.
Week ending September 12, 2026
Browse the week ending September 12, 2026
- Riley v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 05241
The court held that a permanent staircase qualifies as a statutory safety device under Labor Law § 240(1) when it is the sole means of access to the work area, even if an alternative route exists but is not viable. The court also granted conditional contractual indemnification to the general contractor based on the subcontract terms.
Week ending September 5, 2026
Browse the week ending September 5, 2026
- Digangi v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 05162
The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the three-foot fall did not present a significant elevation-related risk, and modified the order to dismiss the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code provisions and OSHA regulations. The court denied summary judgment on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding the defendants’ notice of the icy condition.
Week ending July 25, 2026
Browse the week ending July 25, 2026
- Hippert v J. Rettenmaier USA LP2026 NY Slip Op 04657
The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the defendants were owners who violated the statute. The violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries because a steel grate fell from a significant elevation due to the absence of a safety device.
- Letersky v Militello Farms, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 04647
The court held that Labor Law § 240(1) applies to a worker’s fall into an excavated hole created for the work being performed, rejecting the argument that such accidents are categorically excluded. Additionally, the court found that mud inherent to the work site does not constitute a ‘foreign substance’ under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d), but triable issues of fact remained regarding the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b).
Week ending March 21, 2026
Browse the week ending March 21, 2026
- Fabia v Power Auth. of the State of N.Y.252 AD3d 217
The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 are not entirely preempted but may proceed by substituting the federal standard of care. Conversely, claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) were dismissed because their strict liability standards conflict with federal aviation regulations.
Week ending February 7, 2026
Browse the week ending February 7, 2026
- Szczesiak v ERY Tenant LLC251 AD3d 131
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240(1) because the defective ladder failed to provide proper protection against gravity-related risks. The electric shock was not the proximate cause of the fall, as the ladder moved and wobbled independently of the shock’s force.
Also decided
- Reyes v Hoffman St. Dev. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06562 November 10, 2026
- Ramos v Lendlease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 06394 October 29, 2026
- Matter of Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist. v Ostempowski 2026 NY Slip Op 05704 October 2, 2026
- Matter of Niagara Frontier Tr. Metro Sys., Inc. (Amalgamated Tr. Local Union 1342) 2026 NY Slip Op 05692 October 2, 2026
- Letersky v Militello Farms, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 04648 July 24, 2026