New York Labor Law 240(1) appeals by the numbers - 1,534 Scaffold Law decisions analyzed
By LegiMatch Research Team · Published October 16, 2026 · 4 min read
Short answer: Labor Law § 240(1) appeals are summary judgment appeals: the phrase appears in 93% of the 1,534 decisions we analyzed. The most-cited authority is Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (in 255 decisions), followed by Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co. and Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply. The defense raised most often is sole proximate cause (20%).
What we analyzed
We searched LegiMatch's library for New York decisions that mention Labor Law § 240 together with ladders, scaffolds or falls: 1,534 decisions from 1989 to 2018, 97% from the Appellate Division. We counted key phrases in the full text and the authorities cited most. The figures describe what courts wrote about; they aren't predictions.
The issues courts discuss
| Phrase in the decision | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| "summary judgment" | 1,431 | 93% |
| "safety device" | 586 | 38% |
| "sole proximate cause" | 310 | 20% |
| "elevation-related" | 284 | 19% |
| "absolute liability" | 171 | 11% |
| "falling object" | 114 | 7% |
| "recalcitrant worker" | 96 | 6% |
| "comparative negligence" | 59 | 4% |
The pattern is familiar to construction litigators: Was the injury caused by an elevation-related risk the statute covers? Was a proper safety device provided? And can the owner or contractor show the worker's own conduct was the sole proximate cause? Comparative negligence appears rarely because it isn't a defense to § 240(1) liability.
How the appeals were decided
The disposition could be read automatically for 741 decisions:
| Disposition | Decisions | Share of those with a clear disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmed | 378 | 51% |
| Reversed | 121 | 16% |
| Dismissed | 98 | 13% |
| Modified | 88 | 12% |
| Affirmed in part, vacated or other | 56 | 8% |
Modifications are common because § 240(1), § 241(6) and § 200 claims are often decided together, and appellate courts adjust the result claim by claim. Treat these shares as approximate.
The authorities cited most
| Authority | Cited in |
|---|---|
| Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 | 255 decisions |
| Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509 | 189 |
| Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555 | 158 |
| Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280 | 153 |
| Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513 | 142 |
| Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 | 91 |
| Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452 | 84 |
| Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assocs., 96 N.Y.2d 259 | 79 |
| Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290 | 77 |
| Weininger v. Hagedorn & Co., 91 N.Y.2d 958 | 75 |
| Russin v. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311 | 62 |
| Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35 | 61 |
Almost all of the most-cited authorities are Court of Appeals decisions, which shows how much the high court has shaped this statute. Blake and Cahill are the starting points on sole proximate cause; Narducci on falling objects; Ross and Rocovich on which risks the statute covers.
What this means for your research
- Classify the risk first. Is it a falling-worker or falling-object case, and is the risk elevation-related?
- Identify the safety device question. What device was provided, and did it fail or was it missing?
- Test the sole proximate cause defense against Blake and Cahill, including whether adequate devices were available and the worker knew to use them.
- Find decisions with facts like yours - the type of ladder, how it moved, who instructed whom.
LegiMatch helps with step 4: describe the accident and get up to 100 similar decisions, ranked by a match score that shows how facts, legal issues, statutes, jurisdiction and recency contributed, each linked to the court's text. It supports your research and doesn't give legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Is comparative negligence a defense under Labor Law § 240(1)?
No. Under the Court of Appeals' decisions, a worker's comparative negligence doesn't reduce § 240(1) liability; the defense must show the worker's conduct was the sole proximate cause.
What is the recalcitrant worker defense?
A narrow defense where the worker deliberately refused to use available, adequate safety devices. It appeared in 6% of the decisions we analyzed.
How was this data collected?
From 1,534 New York decisions in LegiMatch's library (1989-2018) that mention Labor Law § 240 with ladder, scaffold or fall terms. Phrase counts use full-text search; dispositions were labeled automatically and are approximate.
Sources
- LegiMatch analysis of 1,534 New York decisions, 1989-2018 (court text from public-domain US court records)
- New York Labor Law § 240(1)
This article is general information about legal research, not legal advice. Verify every authority before relying on it.
All articlesMore from the blog
- Can AI find a case from its facts alone? A published test of similar-case searchWe rewrote 80 real court decisions in plain words, removed every name and citation, and measured how often LegiMatch Case Match finds the exact original among 4.7 million U.S. court decisions - with the method, so anyone can repeat it.
- Cases you may have missed - finding authority your brief doesn't citeAfter LegiMatch checks your brief, one click runs a fact-based search on the brief itself and lists strong matching decisions you haven't cited - how it works, what it costs and how to use the results.
- How accurate is LegiMatch Brief Check? A blind test on real court documentsOur blind test of the brief checker, with a detection rate for each kind of citation mistake - wrong court, year, pin cite, case name, quotation, invented case, wrong volume, swapped citations and statutes - plus how often it wrongly flags correct citations, measured on real court decisions and U.S. Supreme Court briefs nobody had used before.