This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
A worker who proves a Labor Law 241(6) claim based on a specific Industrial Code violation can win on liability without first proving that she was free of fault herself. Here, the First Department granted a worker summary judgment on liability after she tripped on a hammer drill’s cord blocking a doorway, and left the question of her own comparative negligence for trial.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- November 10, 2026
- Case
- Logrono v City of New York
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06553
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff testified that her supervisor had directed her to mix cement, which meant bringing bags of cement up from the building’s storage room to the yard. While crossing the storage room to get them, she “tripped and fell on the cord of a hammer drill obstructing the doorway” (2026 NY Slip Op 06553, *1). She sued the City of New York and others, and moved for summary judgment on liability against the City, Riverbay Corporation, and Xinos Construction Corp. on her Labor Law § 241(6) claim, based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1) and (e)(2). The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, and she appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously reversed and granted the motion. The defendants “asserted no viable defenses as to their liability other than plaintiff’s alleged comparative negligence” (id.). But “Plaintiff is not required to show her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 241(6)” (id.). She “established that the doorway where she tripped and fell constituted a passageway within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1),” and the defendants “failed to challenge plaintiff’s testimony as demonstrably false” (id.). The storage room was also “a working area” under section 23-1.7(e)(2), because she “was required to traverse the storage room to access the cement bags” (id.). So “plaintiff’s motion should have been granted and the issue of comparative negligence directed for trial” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Mather v HFK KIK 30th St. Owner LLC (244 AD3d 539 [1st Dept 2025]) and Luciano v New York City Hous. Auth. (157 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2018]). The broader rule comes from the Court of Appeals: a plaintiff seeking partial summary judgment “does not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of defendant’s liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault” (Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 NY3d 312, 324-325 [2018]).
What it means
- Labor Law 241(6) requires “reasonable and adequate protection and safety” for workers where construction, excavation, or demolition work is performed, and owners and contractors must follow the Industrial Code rules that carry it out, with an exception for some owners of one- and two-family homes. Here, the court found violations of two of those rules, one for passageways and one for working areas.
- An injured worker does not have to prove she was careful to win on liability. In a case like this one, her own fault, if a jury finds any, reduces her damages in proportion but does not bar her claim (CPLR 1411[a]).
- A worker’s own testimony can win the motion when the defendants do not challenge it as demonstrably false.
- A room that a worker must cross to get materials for the job she was told to do can be a “working area.”
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
In our view, the court kept two questions apart: did the defendants violate the safety rule, and, if so, did the worker share any blame? The answer to the second question goes to how much she recovers, not to whether the defendants are liable. It follows Ramos v Lendlease (First Department, October 29, 2026) and Volquez v Wade Hampton Apts. (First Department, November 5, 2026) in our recent run of Labor Law 241(6) entries. A cord across a doorway is a familiar sight on a job site; the rules treat it as a hazard. Two lessons. 1. If you are hurt at work, tell your lawyer exactly what you were told to do, by whom, and the route you had to take to accomplish that work. Here, the supervisor’s instruction helped make the storage room a working area, and the court found that the doorway was a passageway; both terms have meaning and consequence in a Labor Law case. In most cases, an injured worker can bring only a workers’ compensation claim against the employer and cannot sue the employer (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11). However, owners and contractors may also be responsible for a worker’s injuries under the Labor Law. Get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, when the only defense left is comparative negligence, move for summary judgment on liability; the worker’s share of fault, if any, is for the jury. A worker’s possible responsibility for their own steps does not excuse a cord left across a doorway.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Labor Law § 241(6); 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), (e)(2); CPLR 1411. Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided November 10, 2026. Posted November 11, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.