What did New York's appellate courts decide in construction accident cases in July 2026?
Four July 2026 Appellate Division decisions left each injured New York construction worker with at least one viable Labor Law claim, clarifying when Section 240(1) applies and who counts as an owner or agent.
July 2026 brought four New York Labor Law appellate decisions that matter to injured construction workers, from a Brooklyn worker denied a ladder to an upstate fall into a freshly dug hole.
This is the second installment of our monthly roundup of New York Labor Law appellate decisions from Washor Kool Sosa Maiorana & Schwartz, LLP, following our June 2026 roundup. If you were hurt on a New York job site, our attorneys can explain in a free consultation how these rulings may apply to your accident.
Schedule a Free Case Evaluation
Key Takeaways for New York Labor Law Appellate Decisions
The July 2026 rulings establish these points for New York construction injury claims:
- A fall into a hole deliberately excavated as part of the work can be a gravity-related risk covered by Section 240(1).
- A worker who is sent to work at height and denied a ladder or other safety device may be able to establish liability under Section 240(1) without a trial.
- A claim that fails under the Scaffold Law can still succeed under Section 241(6) when a specific Industrial Code rule was broken.
- Condominiums, affiliated companies, and managing agents can be liable along with the building's titleholder.
- Comparative negligence is not a defense to a Section 240(1) claim, and hearsay alone cannot defeat a worker's motion for summary judgment.
July 2026 Labor Law Appellate Decisions at a Glance
Four decisions from three Appellate Division departments stood out this month:
- Intriago v. 18th Highline Associates, LLC (Second Department, July 8): Summary judgment for a worker who fell from a stack of doors after being denied a ladder
- Barbosa v. 1169 Hoe LLC (First Department, July 9): No Section 240(1) claim for a slip while lifting concrete forms, but a Section 241(6) claim for rainwater and oil on the floor
- Morina v. 250 Broadway Associates Corp. (First Department, July 9): A condominium and a managing agent qualify as "owners" in a falling-panel case
- Letersky v. Militello Farms, Inc. (Fourth Department, July 24): A fall into a deliberately excavated hole is a gravity-related risk under Section 240(1)
Before the case summaries, a quick note on terms. Labor Law 240(1), known as the Scaffold Law, makes owners and contractors responsible for injuries caused by missing or inadequate protection against falls and falling objects.
Under Labor Law 241(6), owners and contractors are also responsible for violations of specific safety rules in the state Industrial Code, found in Title 12, Part 23 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Summary judgment is a ruling that decides liability without a trial because the key facts are not genuinely in dispute.
Intriago v 18th Highline Associates: Ordered Up Without a Ladder
In Intriago v. 18th Highline Associates, LLC, a Brooklyn case, the worker testified that a supervisor told him to climb onto a stack of doors about seven feet high, covered with two to three feet of snow. He was refused a ladder. While climbing down after removing the snow, the doors shifted, and he fell.
How the Worker Won Without a Trial
The Second Department affirmed summary judgment for the worker on his Section 240(1) claim. His testimony that he was sent to work at height and "was not provided with any safety devices to keep him from falling" was enough to establish the violation, and the defendants raised no real factual dispute.
A Witness Withheld in Discovery Was Barred
The court barred a defense witness because the defendants never disclosed his identity despite demands, court orders, and a final warning. His affidavit, from a supervisor on the project, contradicted the worker's account, but the court upheld precluding it under Section 3126 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), finding the nondisclosure "willful and contumacious." It also affirmed the denial of the defendants' late cross-motion.
Why it matters: A clear account of being sent up without protection can carry a Section 240(1) motion, and defendants who hide witnesses in discovery may lose them.
When Is a Slip Not a Scaffold Law Case? (Barbosa v 1169 Hoe LLC)
In Barbosa v. 1169 Hoe LLC, a Bronx case, the worker pulled concrete forms up to the third floor through a tight floor opening while coworkers pushed them from below. His foot slipped on rainwater and oil on the plywood floor, and he injured his back.
Where the Scaffold Law Claim Fell Short
The First Department agreed the Section 240(1) claim failed because there was no evidence that the form fell or moved out of control while being lifted, or that he was hurt trying to stop it from falling. Without that, the court held, he could not show his injury was the direct result of a height-related risk.
Why the Section 241(6) Claim Succeeded
The court affirmed summary judgment for the worker on his Section 241(6) claim under Industrial Code Section 23-1.7(d), which requires removing, sanding, or covering water, grease, and other slippery substances. The defendants offered no evidence that rainwater and oil were "inherent" to pulling up concrete forms.
His Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed because the court found the transient water and oil resulted from the work's means and methods.
Why it matters: An injury that happens during work at height is not automatically a Section 240(1) case. The same accident can still support a strong Section 241(6) claim, which is why you should plead every applicable theory from the start. For a fuller comparison, see how Labor Law 240 and 241(6) differ.
Can a Condominium Be Liable as an Owner Under the Scaffold Law? (Morina v 250 Broadway Associates)
In Morina v 250 Broadway Associates Corp., a stone mechanic was struck in the head by a 350-pound stone panel during a lobby renovation in Manhattan. Two coworkers were placing the panel on an A-frame dolly when one lost his grip.
Who Counted as an Owner or Agent
The First Department held that every defendant was a proper Labor Law defendant and affirmed summary judgment for the worker under Section 240(1):
- 250 Broadway Associates Corp. gained an ownership interest through an October 2019 merger with the titleholder, so it was an owner too.
- The condominium was treated as an owner because it was responsible for the lobby and had the right to insist on safe work practices.
- Amtrust Realty Corp., the building manager, was the owner's statutory agent because it hired the worker's employer directly and had supervisory authority over the project.
As a result, the condominium, the merged company, and the building manager all remained in the case with the titleholder.
Hearsay and Phone-Use Arguments Rejected
Hearsay alone cannot defeat summary judgment, the court held, so the defense could not rely on a supervisor who did not see the accident and only repeated a coworker's account that the worker hit his head on the panel. Even if the worker was on his phone beforehand, comparative negligence is not a defense to a Section 240(1) claim.
Why it matters: Liability can extend beyond the name on the deed. Condominiums, affiliated companies, and managing agents who hire contractors may all answer for Scaffold Law violations.
Is Falling Into a Freshly Dug Hole a Scaffold Law Case? (Letersky v Militello Farms)
In Letersky v Militello Farms, Inc., the worker was marking fuel lines at night ahead of an emergency water line repair in Chautauqua County when he fell into an open, unmarked hole. The evidence suggested the hole had been dug only hours earlier.
When a Ground-Level Fall Counts
Section 240(1) applies, the Fourth Department held, because the worker fell from ground level into a hole "deliberately excavated" as part of the repair work, not a mere hole in the ground unrelated to the job.
In a companion appeal decided the same day, the court reinstated the Section 240(1) claim against the contractor, Russo Development, after the trial court had dismissed it on reargument. Factual disputes about how the accident happened meant the worker was not yet entitled to judgment.
The Industrial Code Claims: A Covered-Opening Rule Survives
The court also held that Industrial Code Section 23-1.7(b)(1), which requires hazardous openings to be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or a safety railing, is specific enough to support a Section 241(6) claim, and that part of the claim survived. A separate slipping claim based on mud was dismissed because the mud was part of the work surface and inherent to the repair work.
Why it matters: Section 240(1) protection is not limited to ladders and scaffolds. A worker who falls into an excavation connected to the job may have a Scaffold Law claim, not only a trip-and-fall claim.
What the July Labor Law Appellate Decisions Mean for Injured Workers
Read together, these cases point to three practical lessons:
- Details decide the statute. Whether a load moved out of control, whether a hole was part of the work, and whether a ladder was requested can separate a Section 240(1) win from a dismissal.
- Every theory that fits belongs in the case. Barbosa lost under Section 240(1) but won summary judgment under Section 241(6) on the same facts.
- Every responsible party counts. Morina shows that condominiums, affiliates, and managing agents can be liable along with the titleholder.
Evidence matters as much as law, and Intriago shows what happens to a party that withholds it.
Because claims under different sections of the Labor Law can succeed or fail independently, it helps to see how each one fared in the four July decisions:
| Decision | Section 240(1) | Section 241(6) | Labor Law 200 and Negligence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intriago (Second Department) | Summary judgment for the worker affirmed | Still in the case; the defense's late motion to dismiss was denied | Still in the case; the defense's late motion to dismiss was denied |
| Barbosa (First Department) | Dismissed | Summary judgment for the worker under Industrial Code 23-1.7(d) | Dismissed |
| Morina (First Department) | Summary judgment for the worker affirmed | Not addressed on appeal | Not reached on appeal |
| Letersky (Fourth Department) | Applies to the fall; claim against the contractor reinstated, with fact disputes left for trial | Covered-opening claim under 23-1.7(b)(1) survives; mud-based claim dismissed | Dismissed against the landowner; survives against the contractor |
New York Labor Law Appellate Decisions: Questions Answered by Our Attorneys
These answers cover common questions about how New York Labor Law appellate rulings and filing rules affect injured construction workers.
Do these decisions apply to my case?
The July 2026 Appellate Division decisions can apply to other New York construction accident cases. Under New York's stare decisis rules, a trial court must follow an Appellate Division ruling from any department unless its own department or the Court of Appeals has ruled differently. Whether one of these rulings helps or hurts a particular claim still depends on how closely that accident matches the facts the court decided.
Do these rulings affect workers' compensation?
The July 2026 decisions do not directly affect New York workers' compensation benefits. These cases involve third-party claims against owners, contractors, and their agents, which are separate from workers' compensation benefits paid through an employer. An injured worker can often receive workers' compensation and pursue a third-party Labor Law claim at the same time.
How long do I have to file a construction accident lawsuit in New York?
Most New York construction accident lawsuits must be filed within three years of the accident under CPLR 214. A wrongful death claim generally must be filed within two years of the death, and a claim against a city, county, or other public corporation usually requires a notice of claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law Section 50-e. Tolling rules and other exceptions can change these dates.
What are the four Appellate Division departments in New York?
New York's Appellate Division has four judicial departments, and each hears appeals from the trial courts in its region. The First Department covers Manhattan and the Bronx, while the Second Department covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, and several Hudson Valley counties, including Westchester. The Third and Fourth Departments hear appeals from the rest of the state, with the Fourth covering central and western New York.
Can an Appellate Division decision be appealed in New York?
Yes, in some cases. A party that loses in the Appellate Division can seek review in the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, most often by asking for permission, called leave to appeal. A motion for leave to appeal generally must be made within 30 days after the losing party is served with the order and written notice of its entry under CPLR 5513.
Applying the July Rulings to Your Own Accident
New York's Labor Law keeps developing, and each month's appellate rulings can shape which claims an injured worker brings and which parties answer. Washor Kool Sosa Maiorana & Schwartz, LLP offers free consultations and is available 24/7 at 212-406-1700. You can also read about our New York construction accident lawyer or visit us at the Woolworth Building, 233 Broadway #2020, New York, NY 10279.
Attorney Advertising. This article summarizes court decisions for general information and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts, and the result in one case does not predict the result in another.