Falls From Scaffolding, Ladders, and Elevated Surfaces

Falls from heights are the leading cause of death on New York construction sites — and they are also the textbook Labor Law §240(1) case. If you were injured because a ladder, scaffold, stairway, or other elevated work surface failed to keep you safe, the property owner and general contractor are subject to absolute liability under New York’s Scaffold Law. That is dramatically different — and dramatically more powerful — than a workers’ compensation claim.

At MJP Injury Law, attorney Michael J. Prisco litigates ladder and scaffold fall cases in the Bronx, throughout New York City, and across Long Island. He brings these cases on summary judgment, tries them when the defense will not pay fair value, and argues them on appeal. Other personal injury firms hire him as appellate counsel on Labor Law §240(1) matters.

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

The Most Important Thing to Understand About Your Case

The current law firm website you may have arrived from said falls from scaffolding are “typically going to be workers’ compensation cases.” That is wrong, and it is the kind of misunderstanding that costs injured workers seven-figure recoveries.

Workers’ compensation is what your employer pays. It covers a portion of lost wages and medical bills, but nothing for pain and suffering. Workers’ comp is generally your only remedy against your employer. But it is not your only remedy.

Labor Law §240(1) lets you bring a separate, third-party lawsuit against the property owner, the general contractor, and their agents in control of the job site. That third-party case is where the real money is — pain and suffering, full lost earnings, future medical costs, loss of consortium, and (in fatal cases) wrongful death damages. Both claims run in parallel. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What Labor Law §240(1) Requires

Labor Law §240(1) requires owners and general contractors engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure to 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 imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors who fail to provide or erect safety devices necessary to give proper protection to workers exposed to elevation-related hazards. Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 202 A.D.3d 601 (1st Dept. 2022). 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 work. Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 208 A.D.3d 1075 (1st Dept. 2022).

The Ladder/Scaffold Presumption: A Powerful Plaintiff’s Tool

Once the evidence shows that an unsecured ladder collapsed, shifted, slid, tipped, or otherwise failed to remain stable, a presumption arises that the ladder was an inadequate safety device and that the defendant violated Labor Law §240(1). Brito v. City of New York, 248 N.Y.S.3d 54 (1st Dept. 2026); Ortiz v. City of New York, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7281 (1st Dept. 2025); Moore v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 237 A.D.3d 566 (1st Dept. 2025).

That means the worker is not required to prove that the ladder itself was defective. Fields v. Junius-Liberty Dev. LLC, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1518 (1st Dept. 2026). It is enough to show that the ladder failed to remain stable and did not adequately protect the worker from the risk of falling.

This presumption applies broadly. The First Department has held that the failure to secure a ladder against movement or slippage by any means whatsoever constitutes a violation of the statute as a matter of law — including when the ladder is bumped by another worker. Ausby v. 365 W. End LLC, 135 A.D.3d 481 (1st Dept. 2016).

Types of Falls We Handle

Ladder Falls

Ladder falls are the most common Labor Law §240(1) accident. They include:

• A-frame ladders that tip, rock, or kick out — often because they were not tied off or otherwise secured
• Extension ladders that slip at the base or pull away from the structure they lean against
• Ladders bumped by another worker, equipment, or material being moved through the work area
• Ladders set up on uneven, slippery, or sloped surfaces without proper footing
• Defective ladders — broken rungs, bent rails, missing rubber feet, failed locking spreaders

In every one of these scenarios, the controlling principle is the same: the ladder failed to remain stable, and a presumption of statutory violation arises. The defense will try to argue that the worker overreached, lost balance, or moved improperly. None of those arguments defeats summary judgment — they are comparative negligence, which 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) (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).

Scaffold Falls

Scaffold accidents include falls from the platform, falls during scaffold erection or dismantling, and falls caused by inadequate access to the scaffold itself. The First Department has held that when a worker is forced to climb the cross-members of a scaffold because no ladder or stairway is provided — or because the provided access is blocked — the absence of a proper means of access is itself a §240(1) violation.

Common scaffold-fall scenarios:

• Scaffold platforms missing guardrails or toe boards
• Pipe scaffolds that shift or collapse during use
• Suspended scaffolds (swing stages) that drop, tilt, or detach
• Workers forced to climb cross-bracing because no proper access ladder was provided
• Scaffolds erected on unstable or improperly leveled ground

Stairway Falls Treated as §240(1) Cases

Most people don’t realize this: a stairway can be a Labor Law §240(1) safety device when it is the worker’s sole means of access between elevations on the construction site. Skydaniuk v. ESRT Empire State Bldg., LLC, 283 A.D.3d 622 (1st Dept. 2025); Conlon v. Carnegie Hall Society, Inc., 159 A.D.3d 655 (1st Dept. 2018).

In Conlon, the First Department explicitly rejected the defense argument that a permanent staircase is excluded from §240(1) coverage. Where the stairway is the only way for a worker to reach the work area, it qualifies as an enumerated safety device, and any failure to keep that stairway safe — debris on the steps, missing handrails, inadequate lighting — can give rise to absolute liability under the Scaffold Law.

Permanent Structure Collapse

Falls through a rotted floor, a weakened roof, a deteriorated balcony, or other permanent structure also fall within Labor Law §240(1). The First Department has held that liability attaches when the collapse was foreseeable in the sense of exposing the worker to an elevation-related risk — even if the precise manner of collapse was not anticipated. Ciaurella v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 228 A.D.3d 555 (1st Dept. 2024); Moises-Ortiz v. FDB Acquisition LLC, 242 A.D.3d 550 (1st Dept. 2025); Mena v. 485 Seventh Ave. Assoc. LLC, 199 A.D.3d 420 (1st Dept. 2021); Sanchez v. Congregation of Emanuel of Westchester, 228 A.D.3d 893 (2d Dept. 2024).

These cases are particularly powerful when there is evidence that the unsafe condition was known to the contractor or supervisor — water leaks, visible rot, prior complaints from workers about holes in the floor or weak surfaces. Foreseeability in this context is analyzed not in a strict negligence sense, but in terms of whether the work foreseeably exposed the worker to an elevation-related risk.

Falls Through Floor Openings, Holes, and Unprotected Edges

When a worker falls through a hole cut into a floor, an unprotected elevator shaft, an unguarded edge, or a similar opening, §240(1) liability turns on whether adequate fall protection — a harness, a lifeline, a guardrail, or a properly secured cover — was provided. The absence of such protection is a statutory violation. Ciaurella, 228 A.D.3d at 555 (eight-foot fall through opening; no harness or lifeline provided; summary judgment for plaintiff).

What You Have to Prove

To win on a Labor Law §240(1) summary judgment motion in a fall-from-heights case, the plaintiff must establish three things:

1. The accident involved an elevation-related hazard. That is, the injury was the direct result of inadequate protection against the force of gravity. Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (2009).
2. The defendant violated the statute. Either by failing to provide an adequate safety device, or by providing one that was defective or inadequate to the work. Hill v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 568 (1st Dept. 2016); Manfredonia v. 750 Astor LLC, 217 A.D.3d 573 (1st Dept. 2023).
3. The violation was a proximate cause of the accident. It need not be the sole or even the primary cause — only a proximate cause. Quiroz, 202 A.D.3d at 601.

The plaintiff is not required to: prove the device was defective, submit expert testimony, demand a different safety device, or challenge the supervisor’s instructions. Argueta v. 39 W 23rd St. LLC, 236 A.D.3d 564 (1st Dept. 2025); McEachern v. Extell Dev. Co., 199 A.D.3d 464 (1st Dept. 2021); De Rose v. Bloomingdale’s Inc., 120 A.D.3d 41 (1st Dept. 2014).

The Defenses We Defeat

Defendants and their carriers raise the same defenses again and again in fall-from-heights cases. We know the playbook:

“You Were the Sole Proximate Cause of Your Own Accident”

This defense is much narrower than insurance carriers pretend. A worker can be considered the sole proximate cause of an accident only where (1) an adequate safety device was available, (2) the worker knew both that the device was available and that he was expected to use it, and (3) he chose for no good reason not to use it. Biaca-Neto v. Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 34 N.Y.3d 1166 (2020). The defense bears the burden on every prong.

If any of these three elements is missing — if no adequate device was actually available, if the worker was not specifically instructed to use it, or if he had a good reason not to — the defense fails. Garces v. Windsor Plaza, LLC, 189 A.D.3d 539 (1st Dept. 2020); Vacca v. Landau Indus. Ltd., 5 A.D.3d 119 (1st Dept. 2004).

“You Were a Recalcitrant Worker”

Same standard, different label. The recalcitrant-worker defense fails unless the defendant proves the plaintiff was given an immediate, specific instruction to use a particular available safety device and disobeyed that instruction. Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC, 173 A.D.3d 886 (2d Dept. 2019). General job-site safety policies, OSHA postings, and standard training are not enough.

“You Were the Only Witness — We Don’t Have to Believe You”

Insurance carriers love this argument. It is wrong as a matter of law. The fact that the plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident does not preclude summary judgment. De Los Santos v. Carlyle House Inc., 227 A.D.3d 542 (1st Dept. 2024); Wein v. East Side 11th & 28th, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 1579 (2d Dept. 2020); Cruz v. 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 859 (2d Dept. 2021); Smigielski v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am., 137 A.D.3d 676 (1st Dept. 2016).

As the First Department recently held in Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 229 A.D.3d 401 (1st Dept. 2024), unchallenged testimony from a sole witness is sufficient to establish entitlement to summary judgment on a Labor Law §240(1) claim. The defense’s reliance on hearsay accident reports and speculative expert opinions does not raise a triable issue of fact.

“You Were Comparatively Negligent”

Comparative negligence is not a defense to Labor Law §240(1) at all. Period. Saula, 235 A.D.3d at 478. The defense routinely raises it anyway, hoping the court will be confused. We are ready for it.

“You Should Have Asked for a Different Safety Device”

The Labor Law recognizes the realities of construction work and does not require the worker to demand an adequate safety device or challenge a supervisor’s instructions. De Rose, 120 A.D.3d at 41; McEachern, 199 A.D.3d at 464. To place that burden on the worker would, in the First Department’s words, “effectively eviscerate the protections that the legislature put in place.”

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
• 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: 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: funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of parental guidance, and pre-death pain and suffering, if the fall was fatal

Frequently Asked Questions

Does it matter how high I fell?

Less than people think. Labor Law §240(1) protects workers against any “physically significant” elevation-related risk. Falls of six, eight, or ten feet routinely qualify. The question is not the height in feet but whether the fall was the direct consequence of inadequate protection against the force of gravity.

My foreman said it was my fault for losing my balance. Does that hurt my case?

No. Comparative negligence — including a worker losing balance, failing to maintain three points of contact, or using a ladder “incorrectly” — is not a defense to a §240(1) violation. What your foreman said at the scene is not the law.

I’m already getting workers’ compensation. Can I still bring a Labor Law §240(1) case?

Yes. Workers’ compensation is your remedy against your direct employer. A §240(1) case is brought against the property owner, the general contractor, and other entities — different defendants entirely. 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 the only one who saw my fall. Will the insurance company use that against me?

They will try. They will fail. New York courts have held repeatedly — including the First Department in the 2024 Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP decision — that the fact that a plaintiff is the sole witness to an accident does not preclude summary judgment on a Labor Law §240(1) claim.

What if my employer says I should have used a different ladder or scaffold?

That is the “sole proximate cause” or “recalcitrant worker” defense. It only succeeds if the defense proves three things: (1) an adequate safety device was actually available, (2) you knew the device was available and knew you were expected to use it, and (3) you chose not to use it for no good reason. Generic safety policies, posters in the trailer, and pre-shift safety meetings are not enough.

What is the deadline to file a Labor Law §240(1) claim 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

If you fell from a ladder, scaffold, stairway, or any elevated work surface on a New York construction site, the decisions you make in the first weeks after the accident matter. Evidence disappears. Witnesses move. Surveillance footage gets overwritten. Insurance carriers will be on the case immediately, gathering evidence to use against you. 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.