Insurers covering construction risks just got another clear reminder from New York’s courts: when a worker falls from a ladder, liability may follow - even if the equipment appears to be in good shape.
In Daniello v. J.T. Magen & Co. Inc., decided June 17, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department, reinstated a Labor Law § 240(1) claim brought by an electrician injured on a Manhattan job site. The court reversed a lower court ruling that had dismissed the claim, instead finding that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment - even though the ladder he was using had passed visual inspection.
Thomas Daniello had been performing overhead ceiling wiring work at 770 Broadway when a ceiling tile dropped, causing a “wiggle” in the A-frame ladder he was standing on. He lost his balance and fell, later testifying that both hands were occupied with the task and there was nothing to grab onto to stop the fall.
The lower court had sided with the defendants, including site owner 770 Broadway Owner LLC and contractor J.T. Magen & Company Inc., concluding there was no clear defect in the ladder. But the appeals court disagreed, emphasizing that under New York’s Labor Law § 240(1), a worker does not need to prove the equipment was defective - only that it failed to protect against a gravity-related injury.
The court cited Ping Lin v 100 Wall St. Prop. L.L.C. and Rodas-Garcia v NYC United LLC to support its position. It rejected the argument that Daniello’s fall stemmed from a personal misstep or that the ladder’s movement came after he lost his balance. Whether the ladder moved first or second, the court said, the outcome was the same: the safety device was inadequate.
The decision is a familiar but important development for insurers underwriting construction sites and commercial real estate projects. It reinforces the narrow defenses available under § 240(1) and underscores the continued high exposure such cases present in New York. While the ruling didn’t address insurance policy terms directly, it raises clear implications for claims handling and coverage evaluations.
The ruling may not shift the legal landscape, but for insurers and contractors operating under New York’s labor laws, it’s a firm reminder that elevation-related incidents remain among the most tightly construed and consequential areas of liability.
