This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.

News & Insights

| 1 minute read

New First Department Decision Limits Labor Law § 240(1) Exposure in Trench Excavations

In Veloso v. City of New York, decided April 9, 2026, the Court unanimously affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims arising from a trench accident in which the plaintiff was struck by a rock while performing excavation and shoring work.

What makes the decision especially significant is the Court's treatment of the § 240(1) claim. The First Department recognized that some trench collapse scenarios can implicate elevation-related risks, but held that this case did not. The Court drew a clear factual distinction between a cave-in or shoring failure and an injury caused by material coming from the wall of the trench that was actively being excavated. Because the plaintiff was instructed to "move the trench forward," the Court reasoned that securing that front wall would have been contrary to the work being done.

The decision is also useful on the § 200 and common law negligence side. The Court held that the record showed no defendant exercised direction or control over the injury-producing work, and also found no basis to show the creation of or notice of the dangerous condition. That portion of the ruling reinforces the continued distinction between general site oversight and the level of supervisory control required to impose liability.

On the § 241(6) claim, the Court rejected several trench-related Industrial Code predicates, holding that §§ 234.1(b) and 234.2(k) were not sufficiently specific, § 234.2(b) did not apply to the trench configuration at issue, and the record did not establish violations of §§ 234.2(a) or 234.4(a), particularly where shoring had been installed, inspected, and had not collapsed.

For defense counsel, claim professionals, and risk professionals, Veloso is a useful recent appellate reminder that not every trench accident fits neatly into a Labor Law 240 framework. The opinion underscores how outcome-determinative the precise mechanism of injury remains, particularly where the claimed hazard is inseparable from the progress of the work itself.

...the rock that rolled over plaintiff's ankle came from "the particular wall of the trench" that was actively being excavated. Because plaintiff testified that he was instructed at the beginning of his shift to "move the trench forward," securing the front wall of the trench in the very direction that work was progressing "would have been contrary to the objectives of the work plan."

Tags

insight, new york, new york labor law, labor law 240, labor law 241, labor law 200, premises liability new york, construction litigation defense, construction-law, insurance-services, product-liability-and-torts, construction accident defense, trench accident litigation, excavation injury liability, industrial code violations