Brooklyn Scaffold Fall Lawsuits: How Labor Law 240(1) Summary Judgment Works in Kings County
Updated: 4 days ago
Updated October 21, 2026
Look up almost anywhere in Brooklyn right now (Downtown Brooklyn, Gowanus, the Williamsburg waterfront) and you'll see scaffolding climbing the side of a new residential tower. If you work construction in Kings County, that scaffold is your office. And when a plank shifts, a cross-brace gives way, or a guardrail was never installed, a Brooklyn scaffold fall can end your career in seconds. A drop of even ten feet can fracture your spine and put you on an operating table for fusion surgery. The good news: New York law gives scaffold fall victims one of the most powerful legal tools in the country, and Brooklyn's courts apply it in ways every injured worker should understand.
Key takeaways
Owners and general contractors must provide proper scaffolds and safety devices, and they cannot pass that duty off to a subcontractor.
Your own carelessness is generally not a defense to a scaffold fall claim under Labor Law 240(1).
You can usually collect workers' compensation and still sue the owner and general contractor, who are rarely your direct employer.
The sole proximate cause defense generally requires showing you knew of an available safety device, were expected to use it, and chose not to.
You generally have three years to sue, but a claim involving a public entity like NYCHA needs a notice of claim within 90 days.
Why Are Scaffold Falls So Common in Brooklyn's Construction Boom?
Brooklyn is in the middle of a historic residential building surge, and more towers under construction means more workers on scaffolds, and more falls. The Gowanus rezoning alone put thousands of new apartments into the pipeline. Towers keep rising along Flatbush Avenue and throughout Downtown Brooklyn. Add the endless brownstone gut renovations in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, and Park Slope, and you have scaffolding on nearly every block.
Falls aren't a fluke of this boom. They're its most predictable injury. According to OSHA, falls are the leading cause of death in the construction industry nationwide. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks fatal workplace injuries through its Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, and falls to a lower level consistently rank among the top killers of construction workers.
Part of the problem is how Brooklyn projects are built. Mid-rise residential jobs often run on compressed schedules with layers of subcontractors. A developer forms an LLC to own the lot, hires a general contractor, and the GC hands the actual work to subs who bring their own crews and their own equipment. Safety oversight gets diluted at every layer. When a scaffold is missing guardrails, isn't properly planked, or was assembled by an untrained crew, the worker on it pays the price. Those layered LLCs and general contractors become the defendants in a Brooklyn scaffold fall lawsuit, and as you'll see below, the law was written to make sure they can't point fingers at each other to escape responsibility.
What Does New York Labor Law 240(1) Actually Require on a Brooklyn Job Site?
Labor Law 240(1), known as the Scaffold Law, requires building owners and general contractors to furnish scaffolds, hoists, ladders, and other safety devices that give workers proper protection against gravity-related hazards. The full text is on the books at Labor Law § 240, and it carves out only narrow exceptions: owners of one- and two-family homes who don't direct or control the work, and engineers, architects, and landscape architects who don't direct or control the work beyond planning and design.
What makes the Scaffold Law different from ordinary negligence law is that the owner and general contractor can be liable even if they did nothing careless themselves. In plain English: if the safety device failed or was missing, and that failure caused your fall, the owner and general contractor are liable. Period. It doesn't matter that they never set foot on the site. It doesn't matter that a subcontractor supplied the scaffold. The duty is what lawyers call nondelegable, meaning the owner and GC can't hand it off to someone else and wash their hands of it.
Safety violations are common on New York City job sites, but not every violation makes a case. What matters is whether the violation caused your injury and fits one of the Labor Law's protections.
Here's the part that surprises many injured workers: your own carelessness generally doesn't reduce your recovery. In most New York injury cases, a jury can shave your award by your percentage of fault. Not under 240(1). Comparative fault is not a defense to a Scaffold Law claim. New York's appellate courts keep reading the statute broadly in favor of workers, as we explained in our breakdown of a recent First Department decision in Altamirano v. Frick Collection.
The Second Department, which hears appeals from Brooklyn's courts, applies the same rule. In Lopes v. County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 01619 (2d Dep't 2025), the court upheld summary judgment for a worker who fell from a scaffold with no railings, explaining: "Since the plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that the violation was a proximate cause of his fall, his comparative negligence, if any, is not a defense to the cause of action alleging a violation of that statute." The court also found that a vague affidavit from the employer's representative, who lacked personal knowledge, did not raise a real question that the worker had refused to use safety devices.
One more practical point. Workers' compensation law usually blocks you from suing your direct employer. But the Scaffold Law lets you sue the owner and the general contractor — entities that are almost never your employer on a layered Brooklyn residential job. That's how a worker employed by a small drywall sub can bring a full lawsuit against the LLC that owns the tower and the GC running the site, while still collecting comp benefits. We covered the citywide picture in our post on NYC construction accidents and Labor Law § 240.
How Do Injured Workers Seek Summary Judgment in Kings County Supreme Court?
Injured workers seek it by filing a motion under CPLR 3212 and showing, usually through their own sworn deposition testimony, that a required safety device was absent or defective and that the failure caused the fall. Summary judgment means the judge decides the issue on the papers, without a trial, because the key facts aren't genuinely in dispute. Under CPLR § 3212, the court must grant the motion when the papers establish the claim as a matter of law and there's no triable issue of fact, and the statute's subsection (a) sets a deadline of 120 days after the note of issue is filed unless the court sets an earlier date (no earlier than 30 days after the note of issue) or grants leave for good cause. If you want the full plain-language walkthrough of how these motions work, read our guide to summary judgment under CPLR 3212.
In a scaffold case, the motion usually rests on a simple, powerful record. Your deposition describes the fall: the scaffold had no guardrails, the planking shifted, no harness or tie-off point was provided. Photographs of the scaffold, the accident report, coworker affidavits, and any DOB or OSHA records fill in the rest. If the defendants can't produce admissible evidence creating a real factual dispute (not speculation, actual evidence), the judge grants judgment on liability. Kings County Supreme Court at 360 Adams Street in Downtown Brooklyn sees a steady diet of these motions.
A recent Second Department decision shows how this works. In Pacheco v. 32-42 55th St. Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07013 (2d Dep't 2025), a worker fell from loose, unsecured scaffold planks. The court reversed the denial of his motion and granted him summary judgment on liability. It held that once he made his initial showing, any failure to use safety devices that may have been available at the site was not a defense.
Watch the calendar, too. CPLR 3212(a) allows up to 120 days after the note of issue by default, but a court can set an earlier deadline (no earlier than 30 days after the note of issue), so check the assigned judge's part rules. A note of issue, by the way, is simply the paper that tells the court discovery is done and the case is ready for trial.
Why does a liability ruling before trial matter so much? Because once the judge rules that the owner and GC are liable, the only question left is how much they owe. The insurance carriers can no longer hope a jury lets them off the hook on liability. In practice, a granted 240(1) summary judgment motion changes the settlement conversation in a Brooklyn scaffold fall case, because the negotiation shifts from "whether" to "how much."
Why Does the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Usually Fail in Brooklyn Scaffold Fall Cases?
The defense usually fails because it only works in a narrow fact pattern that rarely matches how a real Brooklyn scaffold fall happens. "Sole proximate cause" is the defendants' main escape hatch: they argue the worker's own conduct was the only cause of the fall, so the statute doesn't apply. The Court of Appeals laid out the standard in Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003), and refined it in Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, 4 N.Y.3d 35 (2004). To win it, the defense essentially has to prove all of the following:
Adequate safety devices were readily available at the site;
The worker knew both that the devices were available and that he was expected to use them;
He chose not to use them for no good reason — and that choice alone caused the fall.
Think about how rarely that describes a real accident. If the scaffold itself collapsed, shifted, or lacked guardrails, the device the law required was defective — and a defective device defeats the defense automatically, because the statutory violation is at least a cause of the fall. If harnesses sat in a gang box but nobody told you to wear one on that task, the defense fails under Gallagher v. New York Post, 14 N.Y.3d 83 (2010), where the Court of Appeals rejected the argument because no one instructed the worker to use the available device. And if the "available" device was on another floor, in a locked trailer, or incompatible with the work you were assigned, it wasn't readily available at all.
A 2026 First Department decision follows the same logic. In DaSilva v. Super P57, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01847 (1st Dep't 2026), a worker fell when an unsecured plank tipped. The court granted him summary judgment and rejected the defendants' sole proximate cause and recalcitrant worker arguments (the claim that he refused instructions to use safety gear), because there was no proof he deliberately disobeyed a direct instruction. The court added that when several safety device shortcomings lead to an accident, that rules out any argument that the worker was the sole proximate cause.
On fast-moving Brooklyn residential jobs, the reality is usually worse for defendants: no tie-off points on the scaffold, no safety monitor, a foreman telling crews to keep moving. The same pattern plays out across the borough line, as covered in our post on ladder fall cases in Queens, where the sole proximate cause defense almost always fails. The defense gets raised in nearly every answer the insurance lawyers file. Whether it holds up depends on the record, which is why it matters to build the deposition testimony carefully from day one.
What Are Lost Union Wages and Future Earnings Worth After a Spinal Fracture and Fusion Surgery?
For a union construction worker, lost earnings are often the single largest component of the case — and unlike many plaintiffs, you can prove them almost to the dollar. Your collective bargaining agreement spells out your hourly wage, scheduled raises, overtime rates, and the employer contributions to your annuity, pension, and health funds. An economist takes those numbers, projects them over your remaining work-life expectancy, and produces a lost-earnings figure that's very hard for the defense to attack. When benefits and fund contributions are added to base pay, the true annual value of a union construction career is far higher than the W-2 alone suggests — and every year of it counts.
Now layer the injury on top. A burst or compression fracture of the lumbar spine that requires fusion surgery is a life-changing event. In a fusion, surgeons permanently join two or more vertebrae with rods, screws, and bone graft, as the Mayo Clinic explains, and full recovery can take months. Even a successful fusion typically leaves permanent lifting, bending, and climbing restrictions — restrictions that are flatly incompatible with scaffold work. A 35-year-old union carpenter who can never return to the trade isn't looking at a few months of lost pay; he's looking at decades of lost wages, lost annuity contributions, and lost pension credits, which is why lost earnings can be a large part of these cases even before pain and suffering is discussed. Objective diagnostic proof matters here too — we've written about how EMG and nerve conduction studies lock in permanent radiculopathy and can strengthen the permanency argument.
Two warnings while your case is pending. First, assume the defense is watching you. Insurance carriers hire investigators and comb social media in serious spine cases, and a single gym selfie can undo years of medical proof — we explained exactly what they look for in our post on how social media posts sink serious injury cases. Second, watch the deadlines. Under CPLR § 214, you generally have three years from the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit. But if your Brooklyn project involves a public entity (a NYCHA campus, a School Construction Authority job, a City-owned building), General Municipal Law § 50-e requires a notice of claim within 90 days after the accident, though a court has discretion to allow a late notice, but never past the deadline for suing that public entity. That's not a typo. Ninety days. Public-entity defendants are no small piece of the landscape either; the NYC Comptroller's annual claims report tracks the enormous sums the City pays out in personal injury claims every year.
Frequently Asked Questions About Brooklyn Scaffold Fall Cases
How long do I have to file a Brooklyn scaffold fall lawsuit?
Generally three years from the date of the fall under CPLR § 214. But if a public entity like NYCHA or the School Construction Authority is involved, you must serve a notice of claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law § 50-e (a court can allow a late notice only in its discretion, and never after the deadline for suing that entity has passed), so talk to a lawyer immediately rather than waiting.
Can I still bring a Labor Law 240(1) claim if I wasn't wearing a harness when I fell?
Often, yes. Not wearing a harness does not by itself end the claim. Your own carelessness isn't a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) claim, and the sole proximate cause defense only works if an adequate harness with a proper tie-off point was readily available, you knew you were expected to use it, and you refused for no good reason. If no one provided anchor points or instructed you to tie off, the defense fails.
Can I collect workers' compensation and also sue under Labor Law 240(1)?
Yes. Workers' comp covers your medical bills and a portion of lost wages regardless of fault, but it blocks you from suing your direct employer. The Scaffold Law lets you separately sue the property owner and general contractor, who are almost never your employer, for full damages including pain and suffering.
Do these cases actually go to trial in Kings County?
Most don't. When a judge grants summary judgment on liability, the only remaining question is the amount of damages, and insurance carriers facing a Brooklyn jury on damages alone often have reason to negotiate seriously. That's why the liability motion is the centerpiece of the strategy.
Conclusion
Brooklyn's building boom has put more workers on more scaffolds than at any point in a generation, and when those scaffolds fail, Labor Law 240(1) holds responsible the owners and general contractors who profit from the work. With the right deposition record, a Brooklyn scaffold fall victim with a spinal fracture and fusion surgery can move for summary judgment on liability in Kings County. If the court grants it, the case turns to damages: lost union wages, future earnings, and a changed life.
If you or someone you know fell from a scaffold on a Brooklyn construction site and suffered a serious spinal injury, Reza Yassi at Yassi Law P.C. is ready to help. Call us today at 646-992-2138 for a consultation. Our construction accident page also explains how Reza Yassi handles scaffold fall cases.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Although I am an attorney, I am not your attorney, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws vary by jurisdiction and may have changed since the publication of this article. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified attorney.
.png)