In the world of personal injury litigation, perhaps no claim is more difficult to defend than one brought under the incredibly burdensome New York State Labor Law Statutes. Almost any accident on a construction site, especially those involving elevation-related hazards, may subject owners, general contractors and subcontractors to liability and, in some cases, absolute liability. The defense must focus on defeating liability, transferring risk and reducing the damages claim.
The attorneys in Marshall Dennehey's New York Construction and Labor Law Practice devote almost the entirety of their practices to New York Labor Law litigation. Our team has decades of experience handling the most complex construction site accident cases throughout the state. From issues involving contractual indemnification and insurance coverage to the ever-evolving application of Labor Law 240, our attorneys remain at the forefront of this rapidly changing area of law.
Representing public and private owners and developers, general contractors, construction managers and all manner of subcontractor trades, our attorneys defend claims arising out of all aspects of the construction industry. These include claims involving the use of scaffold systems, shoring, demolition and heavy machinery in industrial, commercial and residential projects.
Our attorneys are familiar with the full range of construction business practices, management and field personnel, and record-keeping procedures which help yield a cost-efficient and strategic defense. With a proactive and aggressive approach, the team anticipates issues and potential problems with ready and creative solutions. Marshall Dennehey's construction litigators are experienced in successfully resolving New York Labor Law cases through mediation or motion practice and, when necessary, provide a vigorous defense at trial.
Marshall Dennehey's New York Construction and Labor Law Practice serves clients in the five boroughs of New York City and throughout the state of New York.
Results
Notable Victory Obtained in a New York Labor Law Action
We obtained a significant win in a New York Labor Law action, securing partial summary judgment for a municipal library and defeating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241(6) after sustaining injuries when roof trusses collapsed on a construction project managed by a co-defendant on property owned by the municipal library. He claimed the collapse resulted from inadequate bracing. Following discovery, the plaintiff sought summary judgment under Labor Law § 240, asserting absolute liability against the library as the property owner. We opposed the motion and sought partial summary judgment dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, dismissal of the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and contractual and common law indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion after finding questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also granted our motion, dismissing all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, dismissing the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and granting the library unconditional contractual indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer prior to any finding of liability.
Affirmance Achieved in Dismissal of All Claims in New York Labor Law Matter
We successfully achieved affirmance of the trial court’s decision to dismiss all claims against a property owner and designer in a New York labor law matter. The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder stacked atop a bakers scaffold while performing renovation work on a four-story brownstone. The 16-foot ladder and the scaffold were provided by his employer—the general contractor—and set up at his employer’s discretion. The plaintiff filed an action against the owner of the property and the designer, alleging violations of various labor law claims, including labor law Sections 240(1), 241(6) and 200. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of all claims, was filed after the plaintiff’s depositions but before any of the defendants were deposed and with extensive discovery outstanding. The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross moved to compel further discovery. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims as the property owners qualified for the owner and two-family dwelling exception to the labor law. The trial court held that the defendants did not direct, supervise or control any of the plaintiff’s activities. Therefore, according to the affidavit, the single-family home exception did not apply. After oral argument, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision with costs.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Second Department Issues Strong Decision Regarding Identification of Falling Objects for a Labor Law 240(1) Claim
November 3, 2026
Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a non-delegable duty and absolute liability upon owners and general contractors in cases involving a height related or elevation risk. Longstanding case-law dictates that this applies to both “falling work” and “falling object cases” (see New York Court of Appeals case Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]). In a recent July 2026 case, Rolka v Neelam Constr. Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 04335 [251 AD3d 750], the plaintiff was injured while working on a scaffold and picking up debris, when an object struck him in the back of the head. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in Queens Supreme Court and the motion was granted, which led to the appeal. Upon examination the Second Department reversed and found triable issues of fact because the original submissions did not show exactly what struck the plaintiff, or where it came from. The Court held that there were issues of fact whether the object struck plaintiff because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute. This case highlights that the plaintiff alleging a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1) must be specific in their submission as to how the falling object was the result of the lack of proper safety devices and protections.
Case Law Alerts
Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Fails as Court Finds Excavator‑Safety Provision Not Sufficiently Specific
July 20, 2026
In order to successfully invoke liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff must plead and prove a violation of a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code of the State of New York. This statute imposes a non-delegable duty upon owners and contractors regardless of whether they exercise control. While the plaintiff does not have to prove actual negligence, they must show that a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code was violated and that the violation constituted a departure from reasonable care and was a proximate cause of the accident. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 503-55 (1993). In Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC, et al., 2026 WL 1462931, 2026 N.Y. Slip. Op. 03257 (Court of Appeals May 26, 2026), the plaintiff was struck by the boom of a nearby excavator and alleged a violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code. This Section states: “[p]ersons shall not be suffered or permitted to work in any area where they may be struck or endangered by any excavation equipment or by any material being dislodged or falling from such equipment.” The Appellate Divisions were spilt as to whether section was sufficiently specific to support a 241(6) claim- the First, Third and Fourth Departments held it was not specific enough while the Second Department held otherwise. The Court of Appeals in Mann eliminated this split and held that the section is not specific enough. The court’s rationale was that the section did not provide any action to address the safety concern in the provision. This decision is significant because it eliminates Labor Law 241(6) liability based upon an alleged violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code.
