New York Labor Law 241(6):
Industrial Code Violations
Labor Law 241(6) lets injured construction workers sue property owners and contractors when specific Industrial Code safety regulations are violated. It covers a wider range of hazards than Labor Law 240 — including trips, slips, equipment failures, and chemical exposure.
What is Labor Law 241(6)?
New York Labor Law Section 241(6) requires that construction, excavation, and demolition work areas "be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places." That language — "reasonable and adequate protection" — is the foundation of every 241(6) claim.
But the statute itself is broad. Courts have held that Section 241(6) only creates a viable cause of action when a plaintiff can point to a specific, concrete provision of the New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) that was violated. The Industrial Code contains hundreds of detailed safety regulations governing everything from scaffold construction to trench depth to hard hat requirements. Identifying the right code section is the critical first step in any 241(6) case.
"All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places."
Section 241(6) occupies a middle ground in New York's construction safety framework. It isn't as powerful as Labor Law 240, which imposes absolute liability without any comparative fault. But it's more flexible than Labor Law 200 (common law negligence), because a specific code violation eliminates the need to prove that the defendant knew about the hazard. If the code was violated and the violation caused the injury, that's enough — regardless of whether the owner or contractor was aware of the problem.
Here's the practical impact: a worker who trips over debris in a hallway at a construction site (not a gravity-related hazard under 240) can still sue the property owner under 241(6) by citing Industrial Code 23-1.7(e), which requires passageways to be kept free of dirt and debris. A worker who slips on ice? Industrial Code 23-1.7(d). A worker struck by an improperly guarded piece of power equipment? Industrial Code 23-9. The scope is far broader than what 240 covers.
The "Reasonable and Adequate Protection" Standard
The phrase "reasonable and adequate protection" in Section 241(6) sounds like a negligence standard, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Courts treat 241(6) as imposing a non-delegable duty on property owners and general contractors to ensure that specific Industrial Code provisions are followed. The owner can't escape liability by saying they hired a competent subcontractor or didn't know about the violation.
This is fundamentally different from Labor Law 240's "absolute liability" standard. Under 240, if safety equipment was absent or inadequate and a gravity-related injury occurred, the owner is liable — period. No comparative fault, no excuses. Under 241(6), the analysis is more nuanced: the plaintiff must show a specific code violation, and the defendant can argue comparative fault to reduce damages.
Key Distinction: Specificity Matters
Not every Industrial Code provision can support a 241(6) claim. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that only provisions stating a "specific positive command" — concrete requirements rather than general safety goals — qualify. For instance:
Specific Enough
- 23-1.7(b)(1): "Hazardous openings shall be guarded by a substantial cover"
- 23-1.7(d): Surfaces "free from ice, snow, water, grease"
- 23-5.1(b): Scaffold "footings or underpinnings shall be sound"
Too General
- Provisions saying "take reasonable precautions"
- Provisions that merely restate the general duty of care
- Requirements that lack measurable standards
12 NYCRR Part 23: Key Industrial Code Sections
The New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) is titled "Protection In Construction, Demolition And Excavation Operations." It contains 10 subparts with hundreds of specific requirements. These are the sections most commonly cited in 241(6) litigation:
Authority: Labor Law Sections 21, 27, 27-a, and 29; General Business Law Section 483. Current through Register 47, No. 25 (June 25, 2025).
Establishes the baseline duty for employers to comply with all Industrial Code requirements and maintain safe workplaces. This section sets the framework that all other provisions build on.
The most frequently litigated Industrial Code provision. Covers overhead hazards, falling hazards (unguarded openings), drowning hazards, slipping hazards (ice, grease, water), tripping hazards (debris, sharp projections), vertical passage requirements, air contamination, and corrosive substance handling.
- (a) Overhead hazards — 2-inch planks rated for 100 lbs/sq ft
- (b) Falling hazards — openings must be covered or railed
- (d) Slipping hazards — surfaces free from ice, snow, grease
- (e) Tripping hazards — passageways clear of debris
Requirements for hard hats, safety glasses, gloves, and other PPE on construction sites. Employers must provide appropriate protective equipment based on the hazards present.
Detailed specifications for fall protection equipment including safety belts, body harnesses, tail lines, and lifelines. Covers when fall protection is required and what type is adequate.
thorough ladder safety requirements covering placement, securing, condition, and proper use. One of the most commonly cited provisions in construction accident cases involving ladder falls.
Rules for temporary and permanent flooring during construction. Addresses floor openings, incomplete flooring, and requirements for planking at various stages of construction.
Safety requirements specific to manual demolition operations, including structural stability assessment, dust control, and worker positioning during tear-down work.
Requirements for shoring, sloping, and protective systems in trenches and excavations. Addresses the risk of cave-ins and establishes specific depth thresholds for when protection is mandatory.
Foundational requirements for all scaffold types including load capacity, footing, guardrails, planking, and access. Works in conjunction with OSHA scaffold standards (29 CFR 1926.451).
Safety requirements for crane operations including operator certification, load capacity limits, inspection schedules, and proximity to power lines. Critical for high-rise construction in NYC.
Safety standards for bulldozers, forklifts, and other power equipment on construction sites. Includes operator training and equipment maintenance requirements.
Requires dump trucks with obstructed rear views to be guided by a person who can see both the driver and the space behind the truck. This is stricter than federal OSHA, which allows backup alarms as an alternative.
How Plaintiffs Prove a 241(6) Claim
A 241(6) claim has three essential elements. Miss any one of them and the claim fails. This is where experienced construction accident attorneys earn their value — identifying the right code provisions and building the evidentiary record to support each element.
1. Identify the Specific Code Provision
Your attorney must identify one or more specific Industrial Code provisions under 12 NYCRR Part 23 that apply to your situation. The provision must be concrete and specific enough to support a 241(6) claim — general safety directives won't work.
Example: If you slipped on ice at a construction site, your attorney would cite 23-1.7(d), which requires work surfaces to be kept free from ice, snow, water, and grease.
2. Show the Code Was Violated
Next, you must demonstrate that the conditions at the site actually violated the cited code provision. This typically involves testimony from witnesses, photographs of the scene, accident reports, and expert analysis.
Example: Photos showing accumulated ice on walkways, testimony from co-workers confirming no salt or sand was applied, and weather records showing freezing conditions.
3. Prove the Violation Was a Proximate Cause
Finally, you must establish a causal connection between the code violation and your injury. The violation doesn't need to be the only cause — just a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
Example: Medical records showing injuries consistent with a slip-and-fall, witness testimony about the fall occurring on the icy surface, and expert opinion linking the conditions to the accident.
Labor Law 240 vs. 241(6): When to Use Each
Most construction accident lawsuits include claims under both statutes. But understanding when each is strongest helps attorneys build the most effective case strategy.
| Feature | Labor Law 240 | Labor Law 241(6) |
|---|---|---|
| Liability Standard | Strict (absolute) liability — no need to prove fault | Must prove violation of a specific Industrial Code regulation that proximately caused the injury |
| Comparative Fault | Does NOT apply — worker recovers 100% even if partly at fault | DOES apply — recovery can be reduced by the worker's percentage of fault |
| Scope of Hazards | Limited to gravity-related hazards (falls from heights, falling objects) | Covers all construction hazards addressed by Industrial Code (trips, slips, equipment, chemicals, and more) |
| What Must Be Proven | Safety device was absent, inadequate, or malfunctioned; caused injury | Specific code provision applies, was violated, and violation caused injury |
| Common Usage | Scaffold falls, ladder falls, roof falls, falling objects | Tripping hazards, slippery surfaces, unguarded openings, equipment failures, PPE failures |
| Who Is Liable | Property owners, general contractors, and their agents | Property owners, general contractors, and their agents (same parties) |
| Defense Strength | Very limited — only sole proximate cause defense | Broader — comparative fault, code provision not specific enough, code doesn't apply to situation |
Use 240 When...
The injury involved a gravity-related hazard — a fall from a height or an object falling on the worker. 240 is stronger because it imposes strict liability with no comparative fault.
Use 241(6) When...
The injury involved a non-gravity hazard (slip, trip, equipment failure, chemical exposure) where a specific Industrial Code provision was violated. Also use it alongside 240 claims as a backup theory.
Use Both When...
A gravity-related accident also involved Industrial Code violations. Example: scaffold collapse (240) where the scaffold also lacked proper guardrails per 23-5.1 (241(6)). Pursuing both maximizes your recovery.
OSHA Violations and Industrial Code Overlap
OSHA citations provide strong evidence supporting 241(6) claims. Many federal OSHA standards have direct counterparts in the NY Industrial Code. Here are the most common construction violations nationally (FY2024 data) and their NY Industrial Code equivalents:
Fall Protection (General)
OSHA Standard: 29 CFR 1926.501 | 6,763 citations (FY2024)
Most common OSHA violation for 14 consecutive years. Directly supports 241(6) claims through corresponding Industrial Code provisions on fall hazards and safety equipment.
Ladders
OSHA Standard: 29 CFR 1926.1053 | 2,764 citations (FY2024)
Third most cited violation nationally. NY Industrial Code 23-1.21 provides specific ladder requirements that are frequently the basis of 241(6) claims.
Fall Protection Training
OSHA Standard: 29 CFR 1926.503 | 2,217 citations (FY2024)
Failure to train workers on fall hazards. Supports employer negligence arguments alongside 241(6) claims.
Scaffolding
OSHA Standard: 29 CFR 1926.451 | 1,937 citations (FY2024)
Scaffold violations often support both Labor Law 240 and 241(6) claims simultaneously. NY Industrial Code Part 23-5 contains 22 sections dedicated to scaffold safety.
Eye and Face Protection
OSHA Standard: 29 CFR 1926.102 | 1,912 citations (FY2024)
PPE failures are a straightforward basis for 241(6) claims when a specific Industrial Code PPE provision was violated.
NY vs. Federal OSHA: Key Differences
New York is under federal OSHA jurisdiction (Region 2), not a state OSHA plan. But the NY Industrial Code operates independently and is often stricter. Some notable differences:
- Dump truck backing: NY requires a human spotter who can see both the driver AND the rear of the truck. OSHA allows a backup alarm as an alternative.
- Scaffold requirements: Guardrail heights and planking specifications may differ from federal OSHA requirements.
- Trench shoring: NY Industrial Code trench protection requirements may be more stringent than federal standards.
Notable NY Construction Safety Cases
Real enforcement actions show how Industrial Code violations lead to serious consequences — both for workers and for the companies that ignore safety requirements. These cases are drawn from OSHA Region 2 news releases and court records.
ALJ Home Improvement — $687,536 Penalty
Spring Valley, NY (Rockland County)
Roofing company cited after OSHA found workers on steep-slope roofs without fall protection, just six months after a worker died at another ALJ site. The company had 10 inspections since 2019 and two fatal incidents (2019 and 2022). Company founder Jose Lema pled guilty to federal criminal charges in 2024.
Violations Cited:
3 egregious willful violations (per-instance fall protection), 1 willful (unsafe ladder), 4 serious (fall protection, ladder hazards, no head protection).
DME Construction Associates — $1.2M Penalty
Setauket, NY (Suffolk County)
Long Island contractor hit with 9 willful and 4 serious violations after a worker fatality. The company had 7 citations since 2011 and was placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program. OSHA Regional Administrator stated the company 'continually ignored its legal responsibility to provide a safe workplace.'
Violations Cited:
Pattern of willful safety violations across multiple inspections spanning over a decade.
WSC Group LLC — Worker Killed in Trench Collapse
Sunset Park, Brooklyn
Worker Luis Almonte Sanchez died in a 9-foot-deep excavation trench collapse while measuring for formwork. Owner Jiaxi 'Jimmy' Liu was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in 2023 and banned from the construction industry. The company was ordered to permanently cease all construction operations.
Violations Cited:
Willful violation: failed to provide proper trench protection system (relevant Industrial Code: 23-4.2).
Nunez Consulting / Colgate Scaffolding — Fatal Scaffold Fall
625 Fulton St, Downtown Brooklyn
27-year-old Raul Tenelema Puli fell 20 feet while installing scaffolding and was crushed by a 30-foot I-beam at a 35-story high-rise construction site. Multiple companies were cited, including willful scaffold fall protection violations by the subcontractor and Class-1 violations from NYC DOB against both the scaffolding company and general contractor.
Violations Cited:
Willful: failing to provide scaffold fall protection. Serious: improperly secured ladders and scaffolds. NYC DOB Class-1: no working platforms to protect scaffold workers.
Other Subdivisions of Labor Law 241
While 241(6) gets the most attention, Section 241 contains 10 subdivisions. The others establish specific structural safety requirements that can also support injury claims:
241(1) — Fireproof Flooring
Requires builders to complete fireproof flooring as construction progresses. Prevents fire spread through incomplete floors during construction.
241(2)-(4) — Floor Planking
Requires underflooring on each story, planked floors maintained two stories below active work, and thorough planking of steel/iron beam tiers. Prevents falls through incomplete floors.
241(5) — Shaft and Opening Safety
Elevator shafts and openings must be enclosed with barriers on all sides except material movement sides, which need adjustable guards 3-4 feet from the floor.
241(7)-(8) — Excavation & Machinery
Grants the Commissioner authority to create rules for excavation safety and machinery guarding/pedestrian protection (except in cities over 1 million people, where local codes apply).
241(9) — Professional Exemption
Engineers, architects, and landscape architects are exempted from liability when they don't direct or control the work. They can't be held responsible for code violations they had no role in creating.
241(10) — Asbestos Survey
Demolition of pre-1974 buildings (excluding agricultural and one-to-two-family dwellings) requires an asbestos survey before bidding. If asbestos is found, licensed contractors must handle remediation.
Related Accident Types
241(6) claims arise from many different types of construction accidents. Explore the specific accident types most commonly associated with Industrial Code violations:
Frequently Asked Questions
This website is operated by Haddock Law, a licensed New York attorney. If you contact us, your case will be reviewed by Haddock Law. If co-counsel is brought in, any fee arrangement will be disclosed in writing. This is attorney advertising.
Were You Injured Due to a Safety Violation?
If an Industrial Code violation contributed to your construction accident, you may have a strong 241(6) claim against the property owner or general contractor. The consultation is free, and you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.