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 Labor Law 241(6) claim depends on specific Industrial Code sections, and a worker who slips on ice or water may win on liability under the sections on slipping hazards and safe access, even when a Labor Law 240(1) claim from the same fall must go to trial. Here, the First Department affirmed summary judgment under Labor Law 241(6) for a worker who slipped on a construction site staircase, based largely on the defendants’ own photos and testimony, but reversed it under Labor Law 240(1), because there were questions whether the staircase was permanent and whether it was the only way to and from his work area.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- October 29, 2026
- Case
- Ramos v Lendlease (US) Constr. LMB Inc.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06394
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a staircase at a construction site, and he sued Lendlease (US) Construction LMB Inc. and others under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion for summary judgment on liability on both claims and denied the defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240(1) claim. The defendants appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously modified the order. On Labor Law 241(6), summary judgment was properly granted “insofar as predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.7(d) and (f), which require work areas to be kept free from debris and slipping hazards, as well as that workers be provided with a safe means of access between work areas” (2026 NY Slip Op 06394, *1). The proof came from “defendants’ photos of the staircase on the date of the accident which showed ice or water on the staircase, as well as the testimony of defendants’ site safety manager that there was no record they had salted the stairs on the date of the accident, despite it being their policy to salt icy areas” (id.). Questions about his credibility were not enough, because they “do not pertain to the accident itself” (id.), and hospital records from that day said that he slipped and fell on ice (id.). On Labor Law 240(1), however, “the court should have denied plaintiff’s motion” (id. at *2). He testified that the staircase was “temporarily erected for the workers,” but the site safety manager testified that it was “permanent, albeit unfinished” (id.). The defendants did not dispute that a permanent staircase counts as a safety device under the statute “if it is the sole means of access to and from the work area” (id.), and he testified that he could have gone up one flight of stairs and taken the hoist down, as he did after his accident (id.). That claim remains for trial.
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Rivas v Nestle Realty Holding Corp. (188 AD3d 430 [1st Dept 2020]) and Musse v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. (210 AD3d 434 [1st Dept 2022]).
What it means
- The same fall can be judged under more than one section of the Labor Law, with different results.
- Attacks on a worker’s credibility that do not concern the accident itself may not create a question of fact, especially when other evidence, such as hospital records, supports the worker’s account.
- Labor Law 240(1) may cover a fall on a staircase put up temporarily for the workers, or on a permanent staircase that is the only way to and from the work area. A hoist or another staircase can put that in dispute.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
In Martinez v 561 W. 144 Realty LLC (First Department, October 27), a building owner’s own papers defeated its motion for summary judgment in a resident’s ceiling collapse case. Here, the defendants’ own photos and their own safety manager helped prove the worker’s case. Labor Law 240(1), known as the Scaffold Law, gets much of the attention in construction cases, but this decision shows that Labor Law 241(6) can decide liability before trial in a slip-and-fall when the right Industrial Code sections are in the case. Why would the worker still want summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), when he already has it under Labor Law 241(6)? One answer is that under Labor Law 241(6), a worker’s own share of fault, if any, can reduce the recovery; under Labor Law 240(1), it generally cannot (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343 [1998]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 289-290 [2003]). So summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1) can make the trial only about damages, with no need to apportion fault. Two lessons. 1. If you are hurt at work, tell the hospital plainly how it happened, photograph the spot if you can, and tell your lawyer every route there was to and from your work area, including stairs and hoists. Get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, in a slip on ice or water on a construction site staircase, plead Industrial Code sections 23-1.7(d) and (f), ask early for the site’s photographs and its salting records and policies, and pin down at depositions every other way in and out of the work area. When the defense’s own records tell the story, liability may not need a trial.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6); 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d), (f). Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 29, 2026. Posted November 1, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.