Altamirano v. Frick Collection: How New York’s Scaffold Law Continues to Expand Protection for Construction Workers
- Reza Yassi
- Jan 12
- 6 min read
New York Construction Accident Lawyers Explain a Critical 2026 First Department Decision
Construction work in New York City is dangerous by design. Workers routinely operate near open trenches, ramps, elevation changes, and makeshift pathways that are never meant to fail but often do. When they do, the consequences are severe. New York’s Scaffold Law, codified at Labor Law § 240(1), exists to shift the risk of those elevation-related dangers away from workers and onto the owners and contractors who control construction sites.
Construction workers injured on New York job sites often need guidance from a personal injury lawyer to understand how Labor Law §240(1) applies to elevation-related hazards such as ramps, trenches, and demolition debris.
In Altamirano v. Frick Collection, the First Department issued a significant 2026 decision reaffirming just how broadly that protection extends. The court held that an unguarded ramp used during demolition constituted a safety device within the meaning of § 240(1), and that its failure imposed strict liability on the defendants. The ruling reinforces a trend that construction accident lawyers in New York must understand: courts are increasingly unwilling to accept narrow or technical defenses when workers are exposed to gravity-related hazards.
This article breaks down the Altamirano decision, explains why it matters, and outlines what injured construction workers and their families should know about their rights under New York law.
Understanding New York’s Scaffold Law
New York Labor Law § 240(1), commonly referred to as the Scaffold Law, requires owners and contractors to provide proper protection to workers exposed to elevation-related risks. Unlike ordinary negligence claims, § 240(1) imposes absolute liability. If the statute applies and a violation is a proximate cause of the injury, the defendant is liable regardless of fault.
The law is intentionally broad. Courts have consistently held that its purpose is to protect workers from gravity-related risks inherent in construction, demolition, and renovation work. Those risks are foreseeable, preventable, and within the control of owners and contractors, not workers.
Despite decades of litigation, disputes frequently arise over what qualifies as an elevation hazard and what constitutes a safety device under the statute. Altamirano squarely addresses those questions.
The Facts of Altamirano v. Frick Collection
The plaintiff in Altamirano was performing demolition work at a construction site operated by the Frick Collection. As part of the work, debris was being transported across a ramp that spanned a trench. The trench was approximately three to four feet deep, with its bottom roughly six feet below the surrounding surface.
The ramp lacked guardrails or other protective features. While the plaintiff was engaged in the work, a co-worker lost control of a debris cart on the ramp. The plaintiff tripped, lost balance, and fell into the trench below, sustaining serious injuries.
The defendants argued that the ramp was merely a passageway and not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). They further contended that the elevation differential was minimal and incidental to the work.
The First Department rejected those arguments.
Why the Ramp Qualified as a Safety Device
A central issue in Altamirano was whether the ramp constituted a safety device under § 240(1). Defendants often argue that ramps, floors, and walkways are outside the statute because they are not enumerated devices like ladders or scaffolds.
The First Department made clear that such formalistic distinctions do not control. What matters is function, not label.
The ramp was integral to the demolition work. It was not merely a route from one area to another. It was the means by which debris was moved across an elevation differential during active construction. In that context, the ramp served the same functional role as other devices designed to protect workers from gravity-related risks.
Because the ramp spanned a trench and lacked guardrails, it failed to provide adequate protection. That failure triggered liability under § 240(1).
Elevation Differential and Gravity-Related Risk
Defendants also argued that the height differential was too small to implicate the Scaffold Law. This argument appears frequently in construction accident litigation and is increasingly unsuccessful.
The court emphasized that the proper inquiry is not the precise measurement of the fall, but whether the injury resulted from a gravity-related risk requiring protective devices. A fall into a trench several feet below the work surface is precisely the type of hazard the statute was designed to prevent.
By focusing on the nature of the risk rather than arbitrary height thresholds, the First Department reaffirmed the worker-protective purpose of the law.
The Ramp Was Not a Mere Passageway
Another defense rejected by the court was the claim that the ramp was simply a passageway. New York courts have sometimes distinguished between passageways and work devices, but that distinction is not absolute.
In Altamirano, the ramp was actively used to move demolition debris. It was part of the work itself. When a structure or surface is used as a tool in the performance of construction work, it can qualify as a safety device even if it resembles a walkway or floor.
This aspect of the decision is especially important for construction accident lawyers because it broadens the range of site conditions that may trigger § 240(1) liability.
Why the Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Was Academic
Because the plaintiff established liability under § 240(1), the court declined to address the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. This is a common procedural outcome that is often misunderstood.
Section 241(6) requires proof of a specific Industrial Code violation and comparative negligence may apply. Section 240(1), by contrast, imposes strict liability. Once § 240(1) liability is established, additional statutory claims become unnecessary for purposes of recovery.
For injured workers, this underscores the importance of identifying viable § 240(1) theories early in the case.
Why Altamirano Matters for Injured Construction Workers
Altamirano reinforces several critical principles that benefit injured workers:
Owners and contractors cannot avoid liability by characterizing dangerous work surfaces as ordinary passageways. Elevation hazards do not disappear simply because they are part of routine site operations. Ramps, platforms, and makeshift pathways used during construction can qualify as safety devices when they expose workers to gravity-related risks.
The decision also signals that courts remain committed to the remedial purpose of the Scaffold Law. Attempts to narrow its scope through technical arguments are increasingly unsuccessful, particularly in the First Department.
Implications for New York Construction Accident Claims
For injured workers in Manhattan and throughout New York City, Altamirano strengthens the ability to pursue compensation after falls involving trenches, ramps, and similar site conditions. Cases like Altamirano v. Frick Collection demonstrates how a properly evaluated Construction Injury claim can succeed even when defendants attempt to minimize the seriousness of elevation-related hazards.
Why Legal Representation Matters After a Construction Injury
Scaffold Law cases are complex. Owners and insurers aggressively contest liability, often raising multiple defenses aimed at avoiding strict liability. A thorough investigation of the site conditions, work methods, and equipment involved is essential.
An experienced New York workplace accident lawyer understands how to frame these facts within the evolving case law, including decisions like Altamirano. Early legal intervention can preserve evidence, identify statutory violations, and position the case for maximum recovery.
FAQs
What is New York’s Scaffold Law, and who does it protect?
New York’s Scaffold Law, also known as Labor Law §240(1), protects construction workers who are injured due to elevation-related hazards, such as falls from height or falls into trenches. It applies to workers involved in construction, demolition, renovation, or repair work and places responsibility on owners and contractors to provide proper safety devices.
Does Labor Law §240(1) apply to falls involving ramps or trenches?
Yes. Courts have repeatedly held that Labor Law §240(1) can apply when a worker is injured on a ramp or falls into a trench if the injury results from a gravity-related risk and the lack of proper safety protection. As seen in Altamirano v. Frick Collection, even nontraditional structures like ramps can qualify when they are integral to the work.
How high does a fall need to be for a Scaffold Law claim?
There is no minimum height requirement under Labor Law §240(1). The key issue is whether the injury was caused by a gravity-related hazard that required safety devices. Even falls from relatively short distances, including into trenches or below work surfaces, may qualify if proper protection was not provided.
Who can be held liable under New York’s Scaffold Law?
Owners, general contractors, and parties with authority to control the work site may be held liable under Labor Law §240(1). Liability is strict, meaning the injured worker does not need to prove negligence—only that a statutory violation occurred and caused the injury.
What evidence is important for a construction injury claim under Labor Law §240(1)?
Important evidence includes photographs of the accident site, details about the equipment or structures involved, witness statements, incident reports, and medical records. Early investigation is critical because construction sites often change quickly after an accident.
About Yassi Law PC
Yassi Law PC represents injured construction workers throughout New York City and the surrounding areas. The firm focuses on serious personal injury claims arising from construction accidents, including falls from height, trench collapses, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
By Reza Yassi
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every construction accident case is fact-specific, and outcomes depend on the unique circumstances involved. If you or a loved one has been injured on a construction site, you should consult a qualified attorney to discuss your legal rights.
.png)