Our Battle-Ready Attorneys
Won’t Back Down

Struck by Falling Objects on Construction Sites

Falling objects kill and seriously injure New York construction workers every year — bricks, pipes, beams, concrete panels, tools dropped from above, materials that tip over while being unloaded, loads that slip from a hoist or a forklift. Most of these accidents are not freak occurrences. They happen because the load was inadequately secured, and they fall squarely within Labor Law §240(1).

At MJP Injury Law, attorney Michael J. Prisco litigates falling-object cases at every level — pre-suit investigation, summary judgment motion practice, trial, and appeal. Other personal injury firms hire him as appellate counsel on Labor Law §240(1) matters. If you were hit by a falling object on a construction site in New York City or on Long Island, the property owner and general contractor face absolute liability — provided the case is litigated correctly.

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

Labor Law §240(1) Protects Falling-Object Victims, Not Just Falling Workers

Many people think of New York’s Scaffold Law as a statute that only applies when the worker falls. That is wrong. The statute applies equally to cases where the worker stays put and an object falls onto the worker — and the same powerful protections apply: absolute liability against the owner and general contractor, no comparative negligence defense, and a non-delegable duty to provide proper safety devices.

As the Court of Appeals put it in Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (2009): the question is not whether the worker fell or the object fell. The single decisive question is whether the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.

The Two-Part Test for a Falling-Object §240(1) Case

In Fabrizi v. 1095 Ave. of Americas, L.L.C., 22 N.Y.3d 658 (2014), the Court of Appeals laid out the framework that controls every falling-object case in New York. To prevail under §240(1) on a falling-object theory, the plaintiff must establish two things:

At the time the object fell, it was either being hoisted or secured, OR it required securing for the purposes of the undertaking.
The object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.

That is the doctrine. The case-by-case battle is over what counts as an object that “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” — because if the object required securing and wasn’t secured, the statute is violated.

What Counts as an Object That “Required Securing”

New York courts have applied the “required securing” element broadly. Some recent examples of objects that triggered §240(1) liability:

Materials being unloaded from a delivery truck: Ramos-Perez v. Evelyn USA, LLC, 168 A.D.3d 1112 (2d Dept. 2019) (pallet fell from hydraulic lift); Landi v. SDS William St., LLC, 146 A.D.3d 33 (1st Dept. 2016) (3,000-pound cinder blocks on pallet jack); Gonzalez v. Glenwood Mason Supply Co., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 338 (1st Dept. 2007) (4,000-pound bundle of cinder blocks).
Materials being demolished from a ceiling or wall: Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC, 241 A.D.3d 844 (2d Dept. 2025) (HVAC duct being removed); Tejada-Rodriguez v. 76 Eleventh Ave. Prop. Owner LLC, 231 A.D.3d 419 (1st Dept. 2024) (wooden panel from concrete ceiling); Bartley v. 76 Eleventh Ave. Prop. Owner LLC, 226 A.D.3d 528 (1st Dept. 2024) (jack from overhead concrete beam).
Heavy materials being moved with carts, dollies, or pallet jacks: Nyanteh v. 590 Madison Ave., LLC, 238 A.D.3d 643 (1st Dept. 2025) (A-frame cart with metal sheets tipped); Touray v. HFZ 11 Beach St. LLC, 180 A.D.3d 507 (1st Dept. 2020) (push cart with cement boards tipped); Hernandez v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909 (1st Dept. 2025) (dolly with 1,200 pounds of masonite).
Tools, bricks, and small objects falling from above: Torres-Quito v. 1711 LLC, 227 A.D.3d 113 (1st Dept. 2024) (single brick from facade struck plaintiff in head); Fromel v. W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, 232 A.D.3d 513 (1st Dept. 2024) (formwork support beam fell from elevated platform).
Pipes, beams, and structural elements being installed or removed: Mejia v. 770 Broadway Owner, LLC, 234 A.D.3d 615 (1st Dept. 2025) (16-foot scaffold pipe left unsecured); Cusumano v. Super P57 LLC, 237 A.D.3d 533 (1st Dept. 2025) (beam not secured to dolly); Byrnes v. RP1185 LLC, 238 A.D.3d 660 (1st Dept. 2025) (15,000-pound concrete panel inadequately secured).
Materials stored or staged in or around the work area: Lucas v. City of New York, 236 A.D.3d 523 (1st Dept. 2025) (plexiglass panels resting against wall); Brito v. City of New York, 238 A.D.3d 508 (1st Dept. 2025) (steel fence panels toppled by wind in work zone); Outar v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.3d 731 (2005) (dolly stored on bench wall fell).

It Doesn’t Matter How Far the Object Fell — If It Was Heavy Enough

One of the most important developments in modern §240(1) doctrine is the recognition that distance is not the test — force is. An object positioned at the same level as the worker, or one that falls only a short distance, can still trigger absolute liability if its weight and dimensions are capable of generating significant gravitational force. Runner, 13 N.Y.3d at 603; Grigoryan v. 108 Chambers St. Owner, LLC, 204 A.D.3d 534 (1st Dept. 2022).

Recent cases applying this rule:

Lucas v. City of New York, 236 A.D.3d 523 (1st Dept. 2025): plexiglass panels stored at waist height, each weighing 200 to 300 pounds, capable of “generating extraordinary force” — summary judgment for plaintiff.
Hempstead v. Hammer & Steel, Inc., 234 A.D.3d 407 (1st Dept. 2025): 600-pound cement mixer fell only “a matter of feet” but was still “capable of generating an amount of force significant enough to crush” the plaintiff.
Colon v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 228 A.D.3d 422 (1st Dept. 2024): heavy stone shifted only two feet but its significant weight made the elevation differential physically meaningful.

This rule is what the defense bar least likes to acknowledge. Defendants and their carriers will routinely argue that an accident is “de minimis” because the object only fell a few inches or feet. The First Department has rejected that argument repeatedly when the object was heavy enough to generate real force.

The “Permanent Structure” Exception — and Its Important Limit

Defendants frequently argue that §240(1) does not apply because the falling object was a “permanent” part of the building. That argument has a narrow basis in Fabrizi — but it has a critical limit:

If the object was just installed by the plaintiff or his coworkers — even if it would eventually become a permanent fixture — it does not qualify as “permanent” for §240(1) purposes:

Rivera v. 454 West 57th Street Holding LLC, 236 A.D.3d 477 (1st Dept. 2025): drainpipe fell on plaintiff. Court rejected the permanent-fixture defense because “the pipe could not be considered a permanent part of the building, given that it was installed by plaintiff and his coworkers just moments before it fell on him.”
Molina v. 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 231 A.D.3d 543 (1st Dept. 2024): just-installed sprinkler pipe fell. Same result — recently installed material is not yet “permanent.”
Delcid v. Park Ave. Christian Church, 231 A.D.3d 666 (1st Dept. 2024): WonderBoard installed the day before the accident fell on plaintiff. Defense argument that it was a “permanent fixture” rejected.

Identifying when this exception applies — and when the limit kicks in — is a fact-specific question that has to be developed at deposition and through subpoenas of the contractor’s installation records. This is part of why these cases need an experienced Labor Law attorney.

Hybrid Cases: When a Falling Object Knocks a Worker Off a Ladder

A common scenario is the worker who is up on a ladder doing overhead work when something — a piece of cut pipe, a section of ductwork, a cut piece of wood — falls and either strikes the worker directly or knocks the ladder out from under him. These are powerful cases because they implicate both theories: the inadequacy of the ladder as a safety device and the failure to secure the falling object.

Vivar v. Citigroup Tech., Inc., 237 A.D.3d 491 (1st Dept. 2025): ductwork being removed fell, knocking plaintiff off ladder. Summary judgment for plaintiff.
Robinson v. Bond St. Levy, LLC, 115 A.D.3d 928 (2d Dept. 2014): 10-foot piece of metal duct work struck plaintiff and knocked over the ladder.
Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P., 214 A.D.3d 785 (2d Dept. 2023): falling pipe struck the plaintiff’s ladder.
Cevallos v. WBB Constr., Inc., 227 A.D.3d 657 (2d Dept. 2024): cut piece of wood fell, struck the ladder, both fell.

Even where the defense tries to argue the worker placed the ladder negligently or shouldn’t have been working under the cutting area, those arguments are comparative negligence — and comparative negligence is not a defense to §240(1). 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).

You Don’t Have to See the Object Fall

Insurance carriers love to argue that because the worker did not actually see the object before it struck him, the case fails. That is wrong as a matter of law. A plaintiff is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell.

In Torres-Quito v. 1711 LLC, 227 A.D.3d 113 (1st Dept. 2024), a plaintiff was struck in the head by a single falling brick. He never saw it coming. The First Department granted summary judgment because the brick was photographed and matched the type used on the building’s facade — circumstantial evidence was enough.

In Fromel, 232 A.D.3d at 513, the plaintiff and his coworker did not see where a 10-to-15-foot support beam came from. Summary judgment was still granted because the proof showed the beam required securing and the elevated platform was not guarded by netting or an enclosure.

The Defenses We Defeat

“It Was a Permanent Fixture”

As discussed above, this argument has limited reach. If the object was recently installed, was being installed at the time, or was being removed during demolition, the permanent-fixture defense usually fails.

“The Object Didn’t Fall Far Enough — De Minimis”

Heavy objects falling short distances still trigger the statute. The First Department has rejected the “de minimis” argument repeatedly when the object’s weight and dimensions could generate significant gravitational force. Lucas, 236 A.D.3d at 523; Hempstead, 234 A.D.3d at 407; Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1 (2011).

“You Were the Sole Proximate Cause”

This defense fails unless the defendant proves all three of: (1) an adequate safety device was actually available, (2) the worker knew the device was available and knew he was expected to use it, and (3) he chose not to use it for no good reason. Biaca-Neto v. Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 34 N.Y.3d 1166 (2020). The defense bears the burden on every prong, and the failure of any one of them is fatal to the defense. Garces v. Windsor Plaza, LLC, 189 A.D.3d 539 (1st Dept. 2020).

“You Should Have Asked for Different Equipment”

The Labor Law does not require a worker to demand an adequate safety device or challenge the supervisor’s instructions. To place that burden on the worker would, in the First Department’s words, “effectively eviscerate the protections that the legislature put in place.” De Rose v. Bloomingdale’s Inc., 120 A.D.3d 41 (1st Dept. 2014); Gutierrez v. 451 Lexington Realty LLC, 156 A.D.3d 418 (1st Dept. 2017).

“You Were the Only Witness”

The fact that the plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident does not preclude summary judgment on a §240(1) claim. De Los Santos v. Carlyle House Inc., 227 A.D.3d 542 (1st Dept. 2024); Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 229 A.D.3d 401 (1st Dept. 2024); Wein v. East Side 11th & 28th, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 1579 (2d Dept. 2020). Unchallenged testimony from a sole witness is sufficient to establish entitlement to summary judgment.

“You Were Comparatively Negligent”

Comparative negligence is not a defense to a §240(1) violation. Period. Saula, 235 A.D.3d at 478. The defense raises it anyway in nearly every motion. We are ready for it every time.

What You Can Recover

A successful Labor Law §240(1) claim against the owner and general contractor allows recovery of damages that workers’ compensation does not provide:

Past and future pain and suffering — typically the largest component of the recovery, especially in cases involving traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, or amputation
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, and future care
Loss of enjoyment of life
Loss of consortium — a separate claim by the injured worker’s spouse for loss of services and society
Wrongful death damages — funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of parental guidance, and pre-death pain and suffering, where the falling object caused death

Frequently Asked Questions

I was hit by something falling, but I never saw it. Do I still have a case?

Most likely, yes. New York courts have repeatedly held that a plaintiff is not required to show the exact circumstances under which an object fell. Photographs of the object, identification of similar materials in use at the site, and testimony about what work was happening above can be enough to establish the case.

The thing that hit me only fell a few inches. Does Labor Law §240(1) still apply?

It can. Modern New York case law focuses on the force the object generated, not the distance it fell. A 600-pound cement mixer falling a few feet, plexiglass panels at waist height tipping over, an HVAC duct being demolished from above — all of these have been held to qualify under §240(1) when the object was heavy enough to generate “physically significant” gravitational force.

My employer told me the falling object was just a part of the building. Does that mean §240(1) doesn’t apply?

Not necessarily. The “permanent structure” exception applies only to objects that were genuinely permanent fixtures of the building before the work began. Material that was installed during the project — even just hours or a day before — typically does not qualify as “permanent” and is still covered by the statute. Rivera v. 454 West 57th Street Holding LLC, 236 A.D.3d 477 (1st Dept. 2025); Delcid v. Park Ave. Christian Church, 231 A.D.3d 666 (1st Dept. 2024).

I was getting workers’ compensation. Can I still bring a Labor Law case?

Yes. Workers’ compensation is your remedy against your direct employer. A Labor Law §240(1) case is brought against the property owner, the general contractor, and other entities. The two claims run in parallel. There is a workers’ compensation lien against any third-party recovery that has to be negotiated, but that is a back-end issue, not a bar to the lawsuit.

I was wearing my hard hat. Will the defense argue that’s why I’m not entitled to recover?

They will sometimes try, but it is not a defense. Hard hats are basic site safety. They are not the kind of “safety device” enumerated in §240(1), which contemplates devices that prevent objects from falling in the first place — netting, scaffolding with toeboards, properly secured loads. A hard hat does not relieve the owner or general contractor of the duty to secure overhead loads.

What is the deadline to file a falling-object §240(1) case in New York?

Generally three years from the date of the accident. 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. Missing those deadlines is fatal. Contact a Labor Law attorney immediately.

How much does it cost to hire MJP Injury Law?

Nothing up front. We handle Labor Law 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.

Serving New York City and Long Island

Our Bronx office at 3425 E Tremont Avenue, Suite 3, serves construction sites in the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Westchester. Our Massapequa office at 187 Veterans Boulevard serves Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of Long Island. If you cannot come to us, we will come to you — at the hospital, at home, or at a rehabilitation facility. Initial consultations are always free.

Talk to a Labor Law Attorney Today

Falling-object cases turn on details that disappear quickly: the weight of the object, the location it fell from, the manner in which it was secured (or wasn’t), the identity of the contractor who staged or installed the material. Photographs, surveillance footage, daily logs, and OSHA records have to be preserved before the defense gets ahead of you. The sooner an experienced Labor Law attorney is involved, 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.