What New York law requires to prove a construction accident claim, the deadlines that govern it, and the markets we serve in person.
Get a Free Case Review
New York construction workers injured on the job in New York have something workers in every other state lack: the Labor Law. Sections 240(1) and 241(6) place liability for the most dangerous conditions on the parties who control the money and the site — the owner and general contractor — and §240(1) does it with a severity found nowhere else in American law. Knowing which section fits your accident is the difference between a workers' comp check and full compensation.
Section 240(1) covers gravity-related accidents — falls from scaffolds, ladders, roofs, and other heights, and injuries from falling objects that should have been hoisted or secured. When it applies, liability on the owner and general contractor is absolute: comparative negligence is not a defense. A worker who mis-set his own ladder still recovers in full if the statute is violated, because the Legislature put the duty to provide proper protection entirely on the ownership side. The defense that works is "sole proximate cause" — that adequate safety devices were provided, the worker knew it, and chose not to use them — so the fight in a §240(1) case is almost always over what equipment was actually on site and available. Photographs of the site taken before conditions change are the most valuable evidence a worker's family can gather.
Workers' compensation (WCL §11) is the exclusive remedy against your employer — but comp pays a fraction of real losses and nothing for pain and suffering. The Labor Law's target is different: the owner and general contractor, who are usually not your employer.
These claims proceed in the New York State Supreme Court for the county where the accident occurred alongside the comp case, not instead of it — and the comp carrier's lien on the recovery is negotiable, which is a quiet but real part of maximizing what the worker keeps. The statute of limitations is 3 years (CPLR §214), but scaffolds come down and sites get built over in weeks, so the case is investigated now or never.
Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494
The Court of Appeals decision drawing §240(1)'s line at elevation-related risks, and requiring a concrete Industrial Code violation to sustain a §241(6) claim.
Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of N.Y.C., 1 N.Y.3d 280
The "sole proximate cause" defense defined: no Scaffold Law liability only where adequate safety devices were provided, the worker knew it, and chose not to use them — which is why what was on site is the whole fight.
Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343
A specific Industrial Code violation is evidence of negligence under §241(6), with comparative fault available — the framework for every ground-level site injury.
Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876
§200 liability requires authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work — the test for which site parties owe the common-law duty.
Almost always yes — not your employer, but the site owner and general contractor under Labor Law §§240(1), 241(6), and 200. Comp replaces part of your wages; the Labor Law case is where pain and suffering and full future losses are recovered. The two run simultaneously.
Under §240(1), likely yes. Comparative negligence is not a defense to a Scaffold Law violation; if the owner and contractor failed to provide proper protection, they are liable even if your own mistake contributed. The exception is a worker who ignored adequate equipment that was provided and available — which is why what was actually on site is the central factual fight.
Yes. New York courts have squarely held that immigration status does not bar a Labor Law recovery, and it is inadmissible for most purposes at trial. Fear of raising status is something site insurers benefit from; the law does not support it.
Then §241(6) and §200 are the tools: Industrial Code violations covering machine guarding, debris, lighting, and trench protection support liability against the owner and GC, with comparative fault applying. Falling-object injuries — struck by an unsecured load or tool from above — go back into §240(1)'s absolute-liability regime.
Each page covers the courts, roads and local procedure for that market.
New York protects construction workers more strongly than any neighbouring state, and it does so through the Labor Law…
An injured worker in New York has two systems available at once, and how they interact — not which one you pick — is…
There is no cap on damages in a New York injury case, and no formula either. What the law supplies instead is structure…
The consultation is free and carries no obligation.