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

Not every construction injury is a fall from height. Many of the most serious — and most preventable — construction site accidents happen on the same level the worker is standing on: a slip on water or ice, a trip over loose debris, a fall over an exposed pipe, a stumble on improperly stored materials. These cases are governed not by the Scaffold Law, but by Labor Law §241(6) and §200 — and they have their own playbook.

At MJP Injury Law, attorney Michael J. Prisco litigates construction site slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases under the New York Industrial Code. The defense bar treats these cases as if they were ordinary premises liability claims. They are not — they have the full force of New York’s construction-worker protection statutes behind them, and they are routinely won on summary judgment when handled correctly.

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

The Two Statutes That Govern These Cases

Construction site slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall accidents are typically litigated under two parallel theories:

• Labor Law §241(6): Imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific safety regulations in the New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23). Where a defendant violated an applicable Industrial Code provision and that violation was a proximate cause of the accident, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on liability — even if the plaintiff was partially at fault.
• Labor Law §200: Codifies the common-law duty to provide construction workers with a safe place to work. In slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases, §200 is typically analyzed under the “Premises Standard,” which requires the defendant to prove it neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it.

These statutes work together. §241(6) provides the strongest path to summary judgment because notice is not an element. §200 covers the same conduct under a common-law negligence framework and can reach defendants who are not statutory Labor Law defendants.

The Most Important Rule: Notice Is Not an Element of a §241(6) Claim

Insurance carriers routinely defend slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases by arguing they had no notice of the dangerous condition — that the debris had only been on the floor for a few minutes, that no one had complained, that they had no chance to clean it up. Under §241(6), none of that matters.

As the Court of Appeals held in Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343 (1998), an owner or general contractor’s vicarious liability under §241(6) is not dependent on its personal capability to prevent or cure a dangerous condition. The Second Department put it more bluntly in Reynoso v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 740 (2d Dept. 2015): “the absence of actual or constructive notice sufficient to prevent or cure must also be irrelevant to the imposition of Labor Law §241(6) liability.”

What this means in practice: if the plaintiff can show that an applicable Industrial Code provision was violated and the violation was a proximate cause of the accident, the §241(6) claim is established. The defense’s evidence about cleaning schedules, inspection logs, and “we didn’t know” arguments is legally irrelevant to the §241(6) analysis.

The Four Industrial Code Sections That Win These Cases

Most construction site slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases turn on one or more of four specific Industrial Code provisions. Each is sufficiently concrete to support a §241(6) claim. The key is identifying which one applies — sometimes more than one does — and tying the violation to the specific facts of the accident.

12 NYCRR §23-1.7(d) — Slipping Hazards

This rule prohibits employers from suffering or permitting any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform, or other elevated working surface that is in a slippery condition. It requires that ice, snow, water, grease, and any other foreign substance that may cause slippery footing be removed, sanded, or covered to provide safe footing.

The Court of Appeals confirmed in Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC, 41 N.Y.3d 310 (2024), that §23-1.7(d) is sufficiently concrete to serve as a §241(6) predicate. A “foreign substance” is anything that is not a component of the work surface itself and interferes with safe footing. Under Bazdaric, plastic sheeting, debris, water, and other materials all qualify.

This rule applies whether the worker slipped or tripped — the mechanism of the fall does not change the analysis. Ohadi v. Magnetic Constr. Group Corp., 182 A.D.3d 474 (1st Dept. 2020); Serrano v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 146 A.D.3d 405 (1st Dept. 2017).

Recent applications:

• Medina v. 1277 Holdings, LLC, 234 A.D.3d 839 (2d Dept. 2025): plaintiff fell from a wet, slippery, frozen ramp while pushing a pallet jack. Summary judgment for plaintiff.
• Ennis v. Noble Constr. Group, LLC, 207 A.D.3d 703 (2d Dept. 2022): ladder slipped on wet concrete floor. Summary judgment for plaintiff under §23-1.7(d).

12 NYCRR §23-1.7(e)(1) — Passageways

This rule requires that all passageways be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from any other obstructions or conditions that could cause tripping. Sharp projections that could cut or puncture must be removed or covered.

The First and Second Departments have construed “passageway” liberally. It includes:

• Staircases that provide the sole means of ingress or egress to the worksite. Ohadi v. Magnetic Constr. Group Corp., 182 A.D.3d 474 (1st Dept. 2020); Harasim v. Eljin Constr., 106 A.D.3d 642 (1st Dept. 2013).
• Areas frequented by workers to get to and from the work site. Linkowski, 33 A.D.3d at 971.
• Areas near doorways. McCullough v. One Bryant Park, 132 A.D.3d 491 (1st Dept. 2015).
• Areas between stored construction materials and debris. Aragona v. State of New York, 147 A.D.3d 808 (2d Dept. 2017); Torres v. Forest City Ratner Cos., LLC, 89 A.D.3d 928 (2d Dept. 2011).

In Rossi v. 140 W. JV Mgr. LLC, 171 A.D.3d 668 (1st Dept. 2019), the First Department affirmed summary judgment under §23-1.7(e)(1) where an electrician tripped over demolition debris left along the only route he could take to return to his work area.

12 NYCRR §23-1.7(e)(2) — Working Areas

This rule requires that the parts of floors, platforms, and similar areas where persons work or pass be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris, scattered tools and materials, and sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed.

The Court of Appeals recently emphasized in Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc., 42 N.Y.3d 1061 (2024), that this rule “is not limited to tripping hazards.” It applies whether the worker slipped or tripped on the obstruction.

“Working area” is broader than people think. An area qualifies as a “working area” if either the plaintiff performed work there OR had to pass through it to perform his work. Tower v. Structure Tone, LLC, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1825 (1st Dept. 2026); Kaufman v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., 188 A.D.3d 461 (1st Dept. 2020); Castaldo v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Co. Inc., 222 A.D.3d 579 (1st Dept. 2023).

“Accumulation” does not require multiple items. A single piece of debris is enough. In Romano v. New York City Tr. Auth., 213 A.D.3d 506 (1st Dept. 2023), the plaintiff tripped on a single piece of electrical conduit lying on the floor. The First Department held §23-1.7(e)(2) was violated and granted summary judgment. Boss v. Integral Constr. Corp., 249 A.D.2d 214 (1st Dept. 1998) (single piece of sheetrock constitutes “debris”).

“Sharp projection” is construed broadly. It means “any projection that is sharp in the sense that it is clearly defined or distinct.” Kaufman, 188 A.D.3d at 461. Recent applications include:

• O’Brien v. Tectonic Bldrs. Inc., 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6816 (1st Dept. 2025): raised nose of a ramp projecting two to three inches above the surrounding floor — sharp projection.
• Gervasi v. FSP 787 Seventh LLC, 228 A.D.3d 459 (1st Dept. 2024): concrete-colored steel pin embedded in concrete floor — sharp projection.
• Lopez v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 123 A.D.3d 982 (2d Dept. 2014): uncapped vertical rebar — sharp projection.
• Tower v. Structure Tone, LLC, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1825 (1st Dept. 2026): 18-inch sprinkler pipe lying among other debris — scattered materials in a working area.
• Speechio v. Starbucks Corp., 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2135 (1st Dept. 2026): loose electrical wire in pile of discarded wire — debris not integral to the work.

12 NYCRR §23-2.1(a)(1) — Storage of Materials

This rule requires that all building materials be stored in a safe and orderly manner, that material piles be stable under all conditions, and that storage not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway, or other thoroughfare.

The First Department has held this rule is sufficiently specific to support a §241(6) claim. Nicholson v. Sabey Data Ctr. Props., LLC, 205 A.D.3d 620 (1st Dept. 2022); Armental v. 401 Park Ave. S. Assoc., LLC, 182 A.D.3d 405 (1st Dept. 2020).

In Castaldo v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Co. Inc., 222 A.D.3d 579 (1st Dept. 2023), the First Department granted summary judgment under §23-2.1(a)(1) where a ramp was being used as a storage area in violation of the rule, and the materials physically encroached into the path the plaintiff was required to use.

Where workers trip over loose pipes or other materials being stored in a thoroughfare, the rule is violated and the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. Nicholson, 205 A.D.3d at 620.

Labor Law §200 and the Premises Standard

Labor Law §200 codifies the common-law duty to provide construction workers with a safe place to work. Burgos v. Premiere Props., Inc., 145 A.D.3d 506 (1st Dept. 2016). In a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case, a §200 claim is typically analyzed under the Premises Standard — meaning the defendant is liable if it either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it without remedying it within a reasonable time. Prevost v. One City Block LLC, 155 A.D.3d 531 (1st Dept. 2017); Cantalupo v. Arco Plumbing & Heating, 194 A.D.3d 686 (2d Dept. 2021).

Critically — and this is where the defense bar consistently loses — a defendant cannot meet its burden on summary judgment without offering specific evidence of when the accident area was last inspected or cleaned prior to the accident. Saunders v. Nostrand 1543, LLC, 230 A.D.3d 1261 (2d Dept. 2024); Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 169 A.D.3d 947 (2d Dept. 2019).

General references to routine cleaning practices are insufficient as a matter of law. Harrington v. New York City Tr. Auth., 223 A.D.3d 789 (2d Dept. 2024); Ames v. Kimso Apts., Inc., 230 A.D.3d 543 (2d Dept. 2024). Without specific evidence of the last inspection, the defense cannot establish lack of constructive notice and the §200 claim survives summary judgment as a matter of law.

The First Department reaffirmed this just this year. In Castro v. City of New York, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1960 (1st Dept. 2026), the Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on a §200 claim because they offered no evidence establishing when the accident location was last inspected prior to the incident.

Common Construction Site Slip-and-Fall and Trip-and-Fall Scenarios

Wet, Icy, or Slippery Floors

Water from leaks, washdowns, or weather; ice and snow tracked into the site; grease and oil from equipment; concrete dust mixed with water — all of these are “foreign substances” under §23-1.7(d). The carrier’s defense will usually be that the substance was “open and obvious” or that the plaintiff should have seen it. Neither argument defeats summary judgment.

Loose Pipes, Conduit, and Material on the Floor

This is the most common §23-1.7(e)(2) and §23-2.1(a)(1) fact pattern. Plumbers leaving cut sections of pipe on the floor, electricians dropping conduit, demolition crews leaving debris in walking paths — all of these violate the Industrial Code if the worker had to pass through the area to do his work.

Tripping Hazards on Stairways

Stairways that serve as the sole means of ingress and egress on a construction site are “passageways” within the meaning of §23-1.7(e)(1) and “working areas” within the meaning of §23-1.7(e)(2). Tool bags, garbage, debris, and stored materials left on the stairs are violations as a matter of law.

Sharp Projections — Rebar, Pins, Nails, Raised Edges

The First Department’s broad construction of “sharp projection” — anything clearly defined or distinct from the surrounding floor surface — covers a wide range of hazards. Uncapped rebar, embedded steel pins, raised ramp edges, protruding bolts — all qualify.

Improperly Stored Materials That Block the Path

Sheetrock leaning against a wall in a walkway, bundles of wire stored across a doorway, ramps used as staging areas — these are §23-2.1(a)(1) violations and routinely produce summary judgment for the plaintiff.

The Defenses We Defeat

“We Didn’t Have Notice of the Hazard”

This defense fails for §241(6) purposes because notice is not an element of a §241(6) claim. Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343 (1998); Reynoso v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 740 (2d Dept. 2015).

For the parallel §200 claim, the defense fails unless the defendant produces specific evidence of when the accident location was last inspected — not general references to routine cleaning. Saunders, 230 A.D.3d at 1261; Castro, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS at 1960.

“It Was Only One Piece of Debris”

Wrong. A single piece of debris is enough. The First Department held this in Romano (single piece of electrical conduit), and again in Boss (single sheet of sheetrock). The word “accumulations” in §23-1.7(e)(2) does not require multiple items.

“The Hazard Was Integral to the Work”

The integral-to-the-work defense applies only where the dangerous condition is inherent to the work being performed and eliminating it would render the work impossible. Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC, 41 N.Y.3d 310 (2024). It does not apply where safer alternatives were available, where the hazard could have been mitigated, or where the dangerous material was simply left in place after a different task was completed.

Recent rejections of the defense:

• Tower v. Structure Tone, LLC, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1825 (1st Dept. 2026): loose 18-inch sprinkler pipe was an avoidable hazard, not integral to the work.
• Speechio v. Starbucks Corp., 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2135 (1st Dept. 2026): discarded electrical wire was debris, not integral to the work.
• Murphy v. 80 Pine, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 492 (2d Dept. 2022): unmarked electrical “stub up” in floor — defendants offered no evidence the stub up needed to be unmarked.

“He Slipped, He Didn’t Trip”

The mechanism of the fall is irrelevant under both §23-1.7(d) and §23-1.7(e)(2). The Court of Appeals confirmed this in Ruisech, and the Appellate Divisions have followed suit. Lois v. Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC, 137 A.D.3d 446 (1st Dept. 2016) (slip vs. trip distinction not dispositive); Serrano, 146 A.D.3d at 406 (“that the plaintiff slipped rather than tripped does not render §23-1.7(e)(2) inapplicable”).

“Plaintiff Was Comparatively Negligent”

Comparative negligence does not bar summary judgment on a §241(6) claim. Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312 (2018); Ortega v. Everest Realty LLC, 178 A.D.3d 940 (2d Dept. 2019). The plaintiff is not required to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to prevail at the liability phase. Comparative fault is a damages issue, not a liability bar.

What You Can Recover

A successful Labor Law §241(6) and §200 claim against the owner and general contractor allows recovery of damages that workers’ compensation does not provide:

• Past and future pain and suffering
• Past and future lost earnings, including diminished earning capacity
• Past and future medical expenses
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Loss of consortium
• Wrongful death damages where applicable

Frequently Asked Questions

Aren’t slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases just regular premises liability cases?

On a construction site, no. The Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) provides specific safety rules that do not apply in ordinary premises liability cases, and the standards under Labor Law §241(6) are different from — and more powerful than — common-law negligence. The defense bar tries to treat construction slip-and-falls as ordinary slip-and-falls because that is more favorable to them. They are not.

My foreman told me the pipe I tripped on had only been there a few minutes. Doesn’t that mean the owner had no notice?

Not for §241(6) purposes. Notice is not an element of a §241(6) claim under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Rizzuto. Even for the parallel §200 claim, the defense bears the burden of proving when the area was last inspected — and “a few minutes” doesn’t help them unless they can document it with specific evidence.

I slipped on water. The defense says it was ‘open and obvious.’ Does that defeat my case?

No. “Open and obvious” is a doctrine that goes to comparative negligence — it does not eliminate the underlying violation of §23-1.7(d). If the floor was wet and the defendant failed to remove, sand, or cover the slippery condition to provide safe footing, the rule was violated.

I was the only one at the work area when I fell. Will that hurt my case?

No. The fact that a plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident does not preclude summary judgment on a §241(6) claim. Wein v. East Side 11th & 28th, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 1579 (2d Dept. 2020); Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 229 A.D.3d 401 (1st Dept. 2024). Unchallenged testimony from a sole witness is sufficient.

What is the deadline to file a construction site slip-and-fall case?

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.

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.

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

Construction site slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases turn on details that disappear quickly: photographs of the hazard, identification of the contractor whose crew left the debris, daily inspection logs, OSHA records, surveillance footage. 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.