New York Labor Law Section 241(6) allows injured workers to hold property owners and general contractors liable when a specific Industrial Code rule violation causes an injury on a construction, excavation, or demolition site in Queens. The claim requires a distinct code violation, meaning a basic safety standard or an Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule alone will not support it. A worker’s own negligence can reduce the financial recovery, and owners of one- and two-family homes remain exempt if they do not direct or control the work. Section 241(6) operates independently from Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 200, and an injured worker can often pursue all three claims simultaneously.
At K L Sanchez Law Office, P.C., personal injury attorney Keetick L. Sanchez represents injured people in Queens and throughout New York City. She works directly with construction workers to identify applicable Industrial Code violations, find each responsible owner and contractor, and pursue claims while workers’ compensation benefits continue.
This guide covers what Section 241(6) requires, which Industrial Code rules support a claim, how it differs from Sections 240 and 200, who can sue, comparative fault, the evidence that proves a violation, workers’ compensation, and filing deadlines. To discuss your case with a construction accident attorney in Queens, call K L Sanchez Law Office, P.C. at (646) 701-7990 for a free consultation.
What Does Labor Law Section 241(6) Require in New York?
Under Labor Law Section 241(6), owners and contractors must provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to workers in areas where construction, excavation, or demolition work is performed. The New York State Department of Labor implements these safety requirements through the Industrial Code, located under 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 23.
What Duty Does the Statute Create?
Section 241(6) creates a nondelegable duty. In Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993), the Court of Appeals held that owners and contractors can be liable for a violation of a specific Industrial Code rule even if they did not supervise or control the job.
A contract shifting safety tasks to a subcontractor does not remove the owner’s legal duty to the injured worker, although it may affect which defendant pays.
What Types of Work Does It Cover?
The Industrial Code defines construction work broadly to include building, altering, repairing, painting, and moving buildings and other structures. Routine maintenance unrelated to a construction project falls outside the statute.
Unlike Section 240(1), Section 241(6) is not limited to elevation-related risks. It can reach trench collapses, slips on debris, tripping hazards, unguarded openings, and missing eye protection, provided a specific Industrial Code rule addresses the hazard that caused the injury.
Key Takeaway: Section 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to follow the Industrial Code on construction, excavation, and demolition sites. Liability does not depend on who supervised the work.
Which Industrial Code Rules Support a Section 241(6) Claim?
The Industrial Code rule identified as the basis for the claim helps determine whether a Section 241(6) claim survives. New York courts ask whether the rule is specific enough and whether it applies to the hazard that caused the injury.
Why Must the Rule Be Specific?
A valid Section 241(6) claim requires a violation of an Industrial Code provision that sets a concrete and specific command rather than a broad safety standard. Once a worker establishes a direct violation of a specific rule, it serves as evidence of negligence for a jury to weigh alongside the remaining facts of the case.
Rules that call for “adequate” or “safe” conditions without saying how, as well as federal OSHA regulations, do not support the claim on their own. In 2026, the Court of Appeals held that 12 NYCRR Section 23-4.2(k), which bars workers from areas where excavation equipment may endanger them, is too broad to support a Section 241(6) claim, rejecting the Second Department’s earlier position. Specificity is decided subsection by subsection.
Which Rules Apply to Common Construction Injuries?
Courts have treated many subsections of the following rules as specific enough to support a claim:
- 12 NYCRR Section 23-1.7: Protection from overhead hazards, hazardous openings, slipping hazards such as ice and grease, and tripping hazards such as debris and scattered materials.
- 12 NYCRR Section 23-1.8: Personal protective equipment, including eye protection and hard hats.
- 12 NYCRR Section 23-1.16: Safety belts, harnesses, tail lines, and lifelines.
- 12 NYCRR Section 23-1.21: Ladder construction, maintenance, and footing.
- 12 NYCRR Section 23-1.24: Work on roofs, including roofing brackets and crawling boards.
- 12 NYCRR Section 23-2.1: Material storage and debris disposal.
- 12 NYCRR Part 23-5: Scaffold construction, planking, and safety railings.
- 12 NYCRR Part 23-6: Material hoisting equipment.
Which Rules Apply to Excavation and Demolition?
Part 23-4 governs excavation work, including requirements to shore, sheet, or slope trench walls to protect workers from cave-ins. Part 23-3 covers demolition, including inspections for structural hazards, the sequence of demolition work, and protection from falling debris.
A complaint that cites a section number without connecting a specific subsection to the facts may be dismissed. Call K L Sanchez Law Office at (646) 701-7990 to discuss which Industrial Code rules may apply to your accident.
Key Takeaway: A Section 241(6) claim must rest on a specific Industrial Code provision in 12 NYCRR Part 23. A violation of general safety standards or OSHA regulations alone does not support the claim.
How Does Section 241(6) Differ From Labor Law Sections 240 and 200?
Most New York construction injury complaints plead Labor Law Sections 240(1), 241(6), and 200 together because each covers different conduct and carries different defenses. One claim can fail while another succeeds on the same facts.
What Does Section 240(1) Cover?
Labor Law Section 240(1), often called the Scaffold Law, covers elevation-related risks, such as falls from ladders, scaffolds, and roofs, and injuries from objects that fall because they were not properly hoisted or secured. Owners and contractors face absolute liability when a statutory violation is a proximate cause of the injury.
Comparative negligence is not a defense under Section 240(1). In Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of N.Y.C., 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003), however, the Court of Appeals held that there is no liability when there was no statutory violation, and the worker’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
What Does Section 200 Cover?
Labor Law Section 200 codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace. In Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54 (2d Dep’t 2008), the Second Department explained that a claim based on a dangerous condition requires that the defendant created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. A claim based on the way the work was performed requires authority to supervise and control that work.
How Do the Three Claims Compare?
The table below compares the three claims across the factors that most often decide a case.
| Factor | Labor Law Section 240(1) | Labor Law Section 241(6) | Labor Law Section 200 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basis | Statutory duty to provide proper safety devices | Statutory duty tied to a specific Industrial Code rule | Common-law duty to provide a safe workplace |
| Trigger | Elevation-related hazard, such as a fall from height or a falling object | Violation of a specific 12 NYCRR Part 23 provision | Dangerous condition or unsafe work method |
| Who is liable | Owners, contractors, and their agents | Owners, contractors, and their agents | Parties that created or had notice of the condition, or controlled the work |
| Control, creation of the hazard, or notice | No | No | Depending on the claim |
| Comparative fault | Not a defense | Reduces recovery | Reduces recovery |
Section 241(6) often fills the gap when an accident does not involve a fall from height. A worker who trips over debris on a floor or is injured in a trench may have no Section 240(1) claim but a strong Section 241(6) claim.
Who Can Bring a Section 241(6) Claim in Queens?
A worker injured while performing qualifying construction, excavation, or demolition work in Queens may bring a Section 241(6) claim if the worker falls within the statute’s protected class. In Zampko v. Houghtaling, 240 A.D.3d 943 (2d Dep’t 2025), the Second Department repeated that a volunteer who offers services for free cannot claim Labor Law protection. The court still found triable issues of fact because the worker’s exchange of services with the owner may have carried the traditional hallmarks of employment.
The claim runs against owners, general contractors, and their agents, including construction managers or subcontractors given authority to supervise and control the work that caused the injury. Owners of one- and two-family dwellings are exempt when they contract for the work but do not direct or control it.
The worker’s own employer is not a Section 241(6) defendant in most cases. Workers’ Compensation Law Section 11 makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy against an employer that has secured the required coverage, so the Labor Law claim can proceed against the owner, the general contractor, and other parties with authority over the site.
Call K L Sanchez Law Office at (646) 701-7990 to discuss who may be responsible for your injury.
Construction Accident Attorney in Queens – K L Sanchez Law Office, P.C.
How Does Comparative Fault Affect a Section 241(6) Claim?
A worker’s own negligence reduces, but does not bar, recovery on a Section 241(6) claim in New York. Under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 1411(a), construction injury claims use pure comparative negligence, so a worker found 30 percent at fault recovers 70 percent of the damages awarded. The amendment effective May 26, 2026, which created modified comparative negligence under Section 1411(b), applies to motor vehicle claims under Insurance Law Article 51, not to Labor Law claims.
This is a key difference from Section 240(1), where comparative negligence is not a defense. In Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that an Industrial Code violation constitutes evidence of negligence but does not automatically establish liability. Defendants in a Section 241(6) claim can therefore argue that they exercised reasonable care and that the worker’s own negligence contributed to the accident.
Defendants can raise the worker’s conduct through testimony and records showing that the worker ignored instructions, skipped available safety equipment, or used a method the foreman prohibited. A sole proximate cause defense requires more. The defense must show that the worker’s conduct alone caused the accident, with no violation contributing to it. In Zampko v. Houghtaling, the Second Department held that the worker’s failure to have someone hold the bottom of his ladder did not establish that he was the sole proximate cause of his fall under Section 240(1).
Key Takeaway: A worker’s own negligence reduces recovery on a Section 241(6) claim but does not bar it. Under CPLR Section 1411(a), construction injury claims use pure comparative negligence.
What Evidence Proves an Industrial Code Violation?
Proving a Section 241(6) claim starts with identifying a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision that sets a concrete safety requirement, then showing that the site condition violated it and caused the injury. A trench without shoring, a ladder without proper footing, and a walkway covered in debris each point to a different provision.
Useful evidence includes:
- Incident and safety reports: Accident reports, site safety logs, and safety meeting records.
- Photographs and video: Images of the hazard, the equipment, and the surrounding area, taken as soon as possible.
- Witness information: Names and contact details for coworkers, foremen, and others who saw the accident or the condition.
- Daily logs: Records showing who was on site, what work was underway, and what conditions existed.
- Contracts: Agreements that identify the owner, the general contractor, and each subcontractor’s role.
- Equipment and inspection records: Maintenance logs, scaffold inspection tags, and rental records.
- Medical records: Treatment records that connect the injury to the accident.
Evidence can disappear within days as hazards are repaired, debris is cleared, and equipment is returned. If you are able, photograph the area and write down witness names. An attorney can then send preservation letters asking the owner and contractors to keep records, video, and equipment.
How Does Workers’ Compensation Affect a Section 241(6) Claim?
Workers’ compensation and a Section 241(6) lawsuit provide different ways for injured construction workers to recover compensation. Workers’ compensation covers certain medical expenses and lost wages, while a third-party claim may provide additional damages. Receiving workers’ compensation benefits does not automatically prevent a worker from pursuing a claim against a responsible property owner or contractor.
Can You Collect Workers’ Compensation and Sue a Third Party?
You can collect workers’ compensation benefits while pursuing a Section 241(6) claim against a third party. Workers’ Compensation Law Section 11 makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy against your employer, but it does not automatically protect a separate property owner or general contractor. Reporting the injury promptly protects the comp claim, and our guide on how long you have to report an injury at work in NY explains those time limits.
What Damages Can a Third-Party Claim Recover?
A third-party Labor Law claim can recover damages that workers’ compensation does not pay, including pain and suffering, full past and future lost earnings, and medical costs beyond what comp covered.
The comp carrier holds a lien on the third-party recovery for benefits it paid under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 29. The lien is reduced by the carrier’s share of litigation costs, including attorney’s fees. Under Section 29(5), a third-party settlement for less than the workers’ compensation benefits provided requires the carrier’s written consent or court approval. For more legal guidance, read our blog on whether you should hire a construction accident attorney. Call K L Sanchez Law Office at (646) 701-7990 to discuss how your comp benefits and Labor Law claim fit together.
What Deadlines Apply to a New York Construction Injury Claim?
New York construction injury claims have different deadlines depending on who is responsible for the accident and the type of compensation sought. Workers must consider separate deadlines for workers’ compensation benefits and personal injury lawsuits. Claims involving government entities may also require earlier notice and shorter filing periods.
What Is the General Time Limit to Sue?
Under CPLR Section 214(5), most personal injury lawsuits, including Labor Law claims against private owners and contractors, must be filed within three years. Workers’ Compensation Law Section 18 generally requires written notice to the employer within 30 days of the accident, and Section 28 generally requires a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) within two years of the accident.
Workers receiving workers’ compensation benefits should also consider the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law Section 29. After filing a third-party lawsuit, the worker generally must notify the Workers’ Compensation Board, employer, and workers’ compensation carrier within 30 days. Section 29 also contains rules that may allow the carrier to take over the third-party claim if the worker does not file within the required period and the carrier provides the necessary notice.
What Applies if a Public Entity Owns the Project?
When the City or another municipality is a defendant in a construction injury claim, General Municipal Law (GML) Section 50-e requires a Notice of Claim within 90 days of the accident. GML Section 50-i requires a lawsuit within one year and 90 days of the accident. Different laws govern claims against certain public authorities, including the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Claims against the City go to the Comptroller’s Office, which does not accept email service.
Claims against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), MTA Bus, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) are served on the authority, not the Comptroller.
| Claim or Step | Deadline | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Notice to employer for workers’ compensation | 30 days | Workers’ Compensation Law Section 18 |
| Workers’ compensation claim with the WCB | Two years | Workers’ Compensation Law Section 28 |
| Notice of Claim against a municipality | 90 days | GML Section 50-e |
| Lawsuit against a municipality | One year and 90 days | GML Section 50-i |
| Lawsuit against a private owner or contractor | Three years | CPLR Section 214(5) |
Claims against New York State follow different procedures under the Court of Claims Act. For personal injury claims based on negligence, Section 10(3) generally requires a claim to be filed and served within 90 days after it arises. Serving a timely Notice of Intention may extend the filing deadline to two years. These claims are generally brought in the New York Court of Claims rather than Supreme Court.
Speak With a Queens Construction Accident Attorney
After a construction accident, you may be receiving workers’ compensation while deciding whether to pursue a third-party claim against the property owner or general contractor. A Section 241(6) claim depends on the correct Industrial Code subsection, evidence gathered before the site changes, and deadlines that differ for private and public owners.
Attorney Keetick L. Sanchez helps injured construction workers build their claims by examining the circumstances of the accident, reviewing applicable Industrial Code requirements, and identifying potentially liable parties. Our firm handles construction accident claims in Queens County Supreme Court while coordinating with clients’ workers’ compensation cases.
Call K L Sanchez Law Office, P.C. at (646) 701-7990 for a free consultation. Our office at 37-06 82nd St #304 in Jackson Heights serves clients throughout Queens and New York City. Our team speaks both Spanish and English.
Frequently Asked Questions About New York Labor Law Section 241(6)
Does Section 241(6) apply if I was not working at height?
Section 241(6) can apply to various hazards related to construction, excavation, or demolition work, whether or not you were working at height. The claim requires a specific Industrial Code rule that covers the hazard, such as debris on a walkway or an unshored trench.
Can I sue if only an OSHA rule was violated?
No, an OSHA violation alone does not support a Section 241(6) claim, which requires a specific Industrial Code provision. OSHA findings may still help as evidence of unsafe conditions.
Can I recover if I was partly at fault?
Yes, partial fault reduces your recovery but does not bar it. Fault is apportioned under CPLR Section 1411(a), and your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault.
Does immigration status affect my claim?
Immigration status does not bar a construction injury claim. In Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that undocumented workers can recover lost earnings in Labor Law cases.
Can I sue my employer?
In most cases, no, because Workers’ Compensation Law Section 11 makes comp the exclusive remedy against your employer. You may still pursue a claim against a separate property owner, general contractor, or other third party that can be held legally responsible for your injuries.
How soon should I speak with an attorney?
As soon as you are able, ideally before site conditions change and before any Notice of Claim deadline passes. Early review allows evidence to be preserved and the correct Industrial Code provisions to be identified.
