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
Labor Law 240(1), often known as the Scaffold Law, protects workers engaged in certain kinds of work on a building or structure, but not routine maintenance, while Labor Law 200’s duty to keep a workplace safe is not limited to construction work. Here, the Second Department held that a porter struck by loose sheets of plywood could not add a Labor Law 240(1) claim to his case, but should have been allowed to add a Labor Law 200 claim.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 14, 2026
- Case
- Neil v Areeba, Inc.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05963
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that he was struck by loose sheets of plywood. He sued, among others, Areeba, Inc. and Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp. During discovery, he asked the Supreme Court, Queens County, for leave to amend his complaint to add claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1). According to the court, his deposition testimony showed that he was working as a porter when he put his hand on the unsecured plywood. The Supreme Court denied both requests, and he appealed.
The holding
The Second Department modified the order. On Labor Law 240(1), it held that the task must have been performed during “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure,” and that “[t]his definition excludes routine maintenance” (2026 NY Slip Op 05963, *2). Because his testimony showed that he “was employed as a porter and not in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure,” the proposed claim was “palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit” (id.). On Labor Law 200, the court held that the amendment should have been allowed, because “the protection of Labor Law § 200 is not confined to construction work but covers all places to which the Labor Law applies” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decisions in Soto v J. Crew Inc. (21 NY3d 562), Martinez v City of New York (93 NY2d 322), and Jock v Fien (80 NY2d 965).
What it means
- As the court said, Labor Law 240(1) “is not limited to work performed on actual construction sites,” but the worker must have been doing one of the listed kinds of work. Routine maintenance does not count.
- What the worker was doing at that moment matters. Compare our entry on De Souza v 4720 Third Ave LLC, where a worker removing plywood from a ceiling as part of his job was covered.
- Labor Law 200 codifies the duty of owners and general contractors to maintain a safe workplace. It can apply outside construction sites, but the injured worker generally must prove negligence: for a dangerous condition, for example, that the defendant controlled the work site and either created the condition or knew or should have known about it, as the court explained the same day in Soutar v City of New York.
- The court ruled only on whether he could add these claims. It did not decide whether anyone was negligent.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that this decision came one day after the First Department’s decision in De Souza v 4720 Third Ave LLC, which also involved falling or loose plywood. There, the worker was removing plywood from a ceiling when his unsecured ladder moved, and he won on Labor Law 240(1). Here, the worker was a porter, and the court held that his work was not the kind the statute covers. In our experience, injured workers often do not know which law fits their accident, and the answer can turn on what they were doing at the moment they were hurt. We believe two lessons follow. 1. Workers hurt on the job should describe exactly what they were doing when they were hurt, and get legal advice promptly. 2. Even when Labor Law 240(1) does not apply, an injured worker may still have a claim against an owner or contractor, in addition to workers’ compensation, because Labor Law 200’s protection reaches beyond construction sites. The task at the moment of injury can decide which law applies.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1); CPLR 3025(b). Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 14, 2026. Posted October 14, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.