New York Construction Accident Lawyer

New York’s Labor Law gives injured construction workers protections that don’t exist in any other state. If you have been hurt on a construction site in New York City or on Long Island, the right lawyer — one who actually understands Labor Law §240(1), §241(6), and §200 — can be the difference between a workers’ compensation check and a full personal injury recovery.

At MJP Injury Law, attorney Michael J. Prisco handles construction accident cases at every level: pre-suit investigation, motion practice, trial, and appeal. Other firms regularly retain Mr. Prisco as appellate counsel on Labor Law cases. That is the level of expertise we bring to your case from day one.

Free consultation: 718-709-9678 — no fee unless we win.

Why New York’s Construction Accident Laws Are Different

New York is one of the only states in the country with a body of statutory law specifically designed to protect construction workers. The State legislature passed these statutes — Labor Law §240(1), §241(6), and §200 — because of the increased and foreseeable risk of injury on construction sites, and to ensure that an injured worker who is hurt while trying to earn a living for their family is not left without a remedy.

Each statute targets a different category of construction site hazard. Each one places responsibility on the parties who actually control the job site — owners, general contractors, and their agents — rather than on the workers, who are rarely in a position to protect themselves.

These laws are extremely complicated. The statutes are nuanced, the case law changes almost yearly, and the appellate courts continue to grapple with their meaning. Having an experienced Labor Law trial and appellate attorney handle your case — rather than a generalist personal injury lawyer — makes the difference between a claim that survives summary judgment and one that does not.

Why Construction Accident Victims Hire Michael Prisco

Michael Prisco does not just file Labor Law cases — he tries them, and he argues them on appeal. He is regularly in the Appellate Division arguing Labor Law cases and shaping decisional law through those arguments. Other personal injury firms hire him as appellate counsel on their Labor Law matters.

That matters for your case in three ways:

• Nuanced theories of liability from day one: When Mr. Prisco brings a case on your behalf, sophisticated Labor Law strategies are implemented at intake and developed throughout discovery — not bolted on later when a defense motion forces the issue.
• Defense-side experience: Earlier in his career, Mr. Prisco represented insurance carriers and corporate defendants. He knows exactly how the other side values claims, what defenses they raise, and where their playbook breaks down.
• Trial-ready preparation: Every case is built as if it is going to a verdict. Insurance companies pay full value when they understand the case will actually be tried — not settled at a discount.

Labor Law §240(1): The “Scaffold Law”

Labor Law §240(1) is the most powerful statute in New York personal injury law. It imposes absolute liability on owners, general contractors, and their agents when a worker is injured by a gravity-related hazard and the proper safety devices were not provided.

What the Statute Requires

Under Labor Law §240(1), owners and contractors engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure must furnish or erect scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices that are constructed, placed, and operated to give proper protection to a person performing the labor. Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp., 219 A.D.3d 59 (1st Dept. 2023).

The statute is specifically designed to protect workers from gravity-related hazards, and it must be liberally construed to accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted. Pinzon v. Royal Charter Props., Inc., 211 A.D.3d 442 (1st Dept. 2022).

Non-Delegable Duty

Labor Law §240(1) imposes a non-delegable duty on owners, general contractors, and their agents to provide workers with appropriate safety devices to protect against harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person. Cutaia v. Bd. of Mgrs. of the 160/170 Varick St. Condo., 38 N.Y.3d 1037 (2022); Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (2009).

Because the duty is non-delegable, owners and general contractors remain liable even if they assigned compliance to a third party or did not supervise or control the plaintiff’s work. Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 208 A.D.3d 1075 (1st Dept. 2022).

Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense

This is where §240(1) is unlike any other personal injury statute: a plaintiff’s alleged comparative negligence is not a defense to a violation of Labor Law §240(1) and is insufficient to raise a question of fact. Saula v. Harlem Urban Dev. Corp., 235 A.D.3d 478 (1st Dept. 2025); Duran v. ERY Retail Podium LLC, 238 A.D.3d 665 (1st Dept. 2025) (holding that a plaintiff’s failure to maintain points of contact with a ladder is comparative negligence, which is not a defense to absolute liability under the statute).

No Obligation to Demand a Safety Device

The Labor Law recognizes the realities of construction and demolition work and does not require the worker to demand an adequate safety device or challenge a supervisor’s instructions. To place that burden on the employee would effectively eviscerate the protections that the legislature put in place. De Rose v. Bloomingdale’s Inc., 120 A.D.3d 41 (1st Dept. 2014); McEachern v. Extell Dev. Co., 199 A.D.3d 464 (1st Dept. 2021); Gutierrez v. 451 Lexington Realty LLC, 156 A.D.3d 418 (1st Dept. 2017).

Labor Law §241(6): Industrial Code Violations

Labor Law §241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations set forth in Part 23 of the New York Industrial Code in connection with construction, demolition, or excavation work. Ortega v. Everest Realty LLC, 178 A.D.3d 940 (2d Dept. 2019).

Section 23-1.4(b)(13) of the Industrial Code defines “construction work” broadly, to include all work performed in the construction, erection, alteration, repair, maintenance, painting, or moving of buildings or other structures. Llamas v. Yu Yu Chen, 195 A.D.3d 702 (2d Dept. 2021).

To establish a prima facie §241(6) violation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a specific and applicable Industrial Code section and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident. Sanchez v. BBL Constr. Servs., LLC, 202 A.D.3d 847 (2d Dept. 2022); Carranza v. JCL Homes, Inc., 210 A.D.3d 858 (2d Dept. 2022); Ennis v. Noble Constr. Group, LLC, 207 A.D.3d 703 (2d Dept. 2022); Hayek v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 195 A.D.3d 568 (1st Dept. 2021); Bain v. 50 W. Dev., LLC, 191 A.D.3d 496 (1st Dept. 2021).

Identifying the correct Industrial Code violation — and ruling out the ones the defense will argue are inapplicable — is part of what separates an experienced Labor Law lawyer from a generalist.

Labor Law §200: The Common-Law Duty of Care

Labor Law §200 codifies an owner’s or general contractor’s common-law duty of care to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work. Statutory agents of the owner and general contractor are also liable under §200. Burgos v. Premiere Props., Inc., 145 A.D.3d 506 (1st Dept. 2016); Saitta v. Marsah Props., LLC, 211 A.D.3d 1062 (2d Dept. 2022).

Claims under §200 fall into two categories:

• Premises Standard: Where the plaintiff is injured by a dangerous condition of the premises themselves.
• Means and Methods Standard: Where the plaintiff is injured because of the manner, means, or methods by which the work is performed. Cruz v. Toscano, 269 A.D.2d 122 (1st Dept. 2000); Seem v. Premier Camp Co., LLC, 200 A.D.3d 921 (2d Dept. 2021).

Identifying which category your case falls into determines what evidence you need, who you sue, and how the defense will try to defeat your claim.

Construction Accidents We Handle

Our practice covers the full range of construction site injuries. We focus on three categories where Labor Law liability is most often at stake:

Falls From Scaffolding, Ladders, and Elevated Surfaces

Falls from heights are the single most common — and most preventable — cause of serious injury on New York construction sites. They are also the textbook §240(1) case. When a worker falls from a scaffold, ladder, ledge, or any elevated surface because the proper safety devices were not provided or failed to function, the owner and general contractor are absolutely liable for the resulting injuries.

Injuries Caused by Falling Objects

When tools, materials, or debris fall on a worker because they were not properly secured or hoisted, §240(1) applies — but only if the case is litigated correctly. The case law on falling-object claims is fact-specific and constantly evolving.

Construction Site Slip-and-Fall and Trip-and-Fall Accidents

Not every fall on a construction site triggers §240(1). Slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall accidents on a job site are typically litigated under §241(6) and §200, with liability turning on Industrial Code violations and notice of dangerous conditions. These cases require a different proof strategy than a fall from height.

Who Can Be Held Liable for a Construction Accident?

Workers’ compensation is generally a worker’s only remedy against their direct employer. But Labor Law §240(1), §241(6), and §200 allow injured workers to bring third-party claims against:

• Property owners
• General contractors
• Construction managers
• Statutory agents in control of supervision and safety
• Subcontractors whose work created the hazard

Identifying every potentially liable party — and the available insurance coverage that follows them — is a critical early-case task. Defendants whose insurance is exhausted are not the same as defendants with primary $1 million CGL policies stacked on $25 million excess umbrellas.

What You Can Recover Beyond Workers’ Compensation

Past and future pain and suffering. Workers’ compensation pays nothing for pain and suffering. In a Labor Law third-party case, this is often the largest component of the recovery.

• Past and future lost earnings: Including diminished earning capacity if the injury prevents return to construction work.
• Past and future medical expenses: Surgeries, hospitalizations, physical therapy, pain management, future care.
• Loss of enjoyment of life: Compensation for the activities, hobbies, and family experiences the injury has taken from you.
• Loss of consortium: A separate claim by the injured worker’s spouse for loss of services and society.
• Wrongful death damages: If a construction accident is fatal, the family may recover funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of parental guidance, and pre-death pain and suffering.

Common Defenses We Defeat

Defendants and their insurance carriers raise the same defenses again and again in Labor Law cases. Knowing the defense playbook in advance is half the battle:

• “Sole proximate cause.” Defendants argue the worker’s own conduct was the sole cause of the accident. This defense fails wherever the worker had no adequate safety device available or was following the foreman’s instructions.
• “Recalcitrant worker.” Defendants argue the worker refused to use a provided safety device. This is a narrow defense that requires evidence the device was actually provided, was actually adequate, and that the worker was specifically instructed to use it and refused.
• “Comparative negligence.” As discussed above, this is not a defense to §240(1) at all. It can reduce recovery on §241(6) and §200 claims, but only if the defendant proves it.
• “Not engaged in covered activity.” Defendants argue the worker was doing routine maintenance rather than “construction” within the meaning of the statute. The case law on this is technical and the line is often closer than the defense suggests.

Serving New York City and Long Island From Two Offices

We represent injured construction workers throughout the New York metropolitan area from two convenient locations:

Bronx Office

3425 E Tremont Avenue, Suite 3, Bronx, NY 10465

Serving construction sites in the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Westchester.

Massapequa Office

187 Veterans Boulevard, Massapequa, NY 11758

Serving construction sites throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of Long Island.

If you can’t come to us, we will come to you — at the hospital, at home, or at a rehabilitation facility. Initial consultations are always free.

Frequently Asked Questions About New York Construction Accident Cases

Can I sue if I’m already receiving workers’ compensation?

Yes. Workers’ compensation is your remedy against your direct employer, but it does not bar a third-party Labor Law claim against the property owner, general contractor, or other entities whose negligence contributed to the accident. The two claims run in parallel, though there is a workers’ compensation lien against any third-party recovery that has to be negotiated.

What is the statute of limitations for a New York construction accident case?

Generally three years from the date of the accident under CPLR §214. If the responsible party is a municipality (such as the City of New York or the New York City Housing Authority), a notice of claim must be served within 90 days of the accident, and a lawsuit must be filed within one year and 90 days. Because the wrong defendant or a missed deadline can be fatal to your case, contact a Labor Law attorney as soon as possible after the accident.

Does it matter if I was an undocumented worker?

No. New York courts have long held that immigration status does not bar an injured construction worker from recovering under the Labor Law. Defendants frequently try to use immigration status as a pressure tactic — there are protocols for shutting that down.

What if my employer says the accident was my fault?

Employers and insurance carriers routinely blame the injured worker. Under Labor Law §240(1), the worker’s alleged negligence is not a defense at all. Under §241(6) and §200, comparative negligence may reduce recovery but does not eliminate it. What your supervisor said at the scene is not the law.

Do I have to be a “construction worker” to be protected by Labor Law §240(1)?

Not in the way most people think. The statute protects any person employed in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure. That can include painters, window washers, electricians, HVAC mechanics, demolition workers, sign installers, and many others. Whether your activity falls within the statute is a fact-specific legal question — and one of the first things we evaluate at intake.

How much does it cost to hire MJP Injury Law for a construction accident case?

Nothing up front. We handle construction accident cases on a contingency-fee basis: we are paid a percentage of the recovery only if we win. If there is no recovery, you owe no attorney’s fee.

Talk to a New York Construction Accident Lawyer Today

If you or a family member has been injured on a New York construction site, the decisions you make in the first weeks after the accident matter. Evidence disappears, witnesses move, and surveillance footage gets overwritten. The sooner an experienced Labor Law attorney is on your case, the stronger your claim will be.

Call MJP Injury Law at 718-709-9678 for a free, confidential consultation. There is no fee unless we win your case.