Mason injury cases run under the standard Labor Law framework — §240 for elevation-related work, §241(6), and §200.
Same categories as any New York personal injury case.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In a typical negligence case, the defense will argue your case down with comparative-fault arguments — that you weren’t paying attention, that you took a shortcut, that you should have known better. Under §240, those arguments generally cannot defeat the claim. That is why §240 cases tend to settle higher and earlier than negligence-only construction cases.
Yes. Masonry work from mast-climbers, swing stages, and pipe scaffolds is squarely within Labor Law §240(1). If the platform, guardrail, or fall protection was inadequate, the owner and GC face absolute liability.
It can. §240(1) covers being struck by a falling object that should have been secured against gravity — material stacked at a height, a hoisted load, or units left unsecured on a scaffold. Where it doesn’t, §241(6) and §200 apply.
That’s a different but real claim. Silica exposure cases focus on the materials, ventilation, and protective equipment the contractors provided over time, and may involve product manufacturers. The legal path differs from a fall case, so tell us the full history.
Under §240(1), comparative fault is not a defense — partial fault doesn’t reduce recovery. Under §241(6) and §200, partial fault can reduce but rarely eliminates recovery. The “sole proximate cause” defense is narrow and rarely succeeds.
Usually three years; 90 days for a notice of claim on a public job.
