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
Court of Appeals Narrows “Arising Out of Performance of Work” Standard
April 1, 2026
In Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., (2025 N.Y. Slip Op 070077, December 18. 2025), the plaintiff-carpenter was injured while using an electrical subcontractor’s ladder at the worksite. The general contractor and owner sought contractual indemnification against the electrical subcontractor citing the “arising out of the performance of the work” provision within the contract. The electrical subcontractor moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claims. The court of appeals found that the provision was not triggered due to the plaintiff’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by his co-worker. This seems to narrow the “arising out of work” trigger for contractual indemnity analysis. A subcontractor’s specific work and actions at any construction site must be scrutinized under this case in order to ascertain whether indemnity provisions are triggered.
Case Law Alerts
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes Strict Deadlines on Third-Party Actions Starting April 2026
January 1, 2026
On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act (L. 2025, ch. 704), amending CPLR § 1007 to impose, for the first time, strict deadlines on third-party practice in New York civil litigation. Effective April 18, 2026, the Act is intended to streamline cases and curb delay tactics caused by late or excessive impleading, while shifting greater responsibility to both defendants and plaintiffs to identify all potentially liable parties early in the case. Under the new rules, defendants must file third-party complaints within 60 days of serving an answer when based on contractual indemnification, or within 60 days of learning of a potentially liable party under common-law theories. Second-tier third-party actions must be filed within 45 days, with subsequent tiers limited to 30 days and then 20 days. Extensions are capped at 30 days absent a court order, and no impleader is permitted after the filing of the Note of Issue; late filings will be severed or dismissed without prejudice and may not later be consolidated back into the main action. Limited exceptions apply, including certain workplace injury claims against employers (such as “grave injury” cases or when the employer’s identity was unknown), where parties have up to 120 days from the relevant triggering event. While designed to accelerate litigation, the AVOID Act may introduce new practical challenges. Counsel—particularly in complex matters like construction cases—will need to investigate liability and pursue tenders much earlier, potentially leading to expanded discovery, additional depositions, and increased motion practice. Although rights to contribution or indemnity are preserved through separate actions, settlements with plaintiffs may waive contribution rights, complicating resolution and potentially giving plaintiffs a strategic tool to restrict third-party practice and risk transfer.
