Extending the “Gravity-Related Hazard” Doctrine to Work on Permanent Staircases:
Commentary on Cagua v. Bushwick Holdings, LLC (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2025)

Introduction

Cagua v. Bushwick Holdings, LLC confronts a recurring question in New York construction-law jurisprudence: Does Labor Law §240(1) (the “Scaffold Law”) protect a worker who suffers a gravity-related injury while standing on a permanent staircase? The Appellate Division, Second Department, answered “yes,” clarifying that the statute is triggered by the elevation-related risk itself, not by whether the structure is temporary or finished. The court simultaneously tightened the framework for Labor Law §200 and common-law negligence, and reaffirmed the continuing vitality of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-2.7(e) in Labor Law §241(6) claims.

Key Facts

• Plaintiff: Luis Cagua, employed by metal-work subcontractor M&C Impact Corp.
• Defendants: Bushwick Holdings (Owner), Rabsky Harrison (Holding Entity) and Galaxy Developers (Construction Manager).
• Accident: While installing a heavy handrail between the first and second floors, a coworker lost his grip; the rail’s weight pulled Cagua down the stairs, causing injury.
• Claims: Violations of Labor Law §§200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence.
• Procedural Posture: Supreme Court (Queens County) denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion; defendants appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Labor Law §240(1) – Defendants’ request for summary judgment denied. The gravity-related accident fell squarely within §240(1), and the permanent nature of the staircase was held irrelevant.
2. Labor Law §241(6) (12 NYCRR 23-2.7(e)) – Summary judgment denied; defendants failed to show the rule was inapplicable, unviolated, or non-causal.
3. Labor Law §200 & Common-Law Negligence – Summary judgment granted. The incident involved the means and manner of subcontractor-controlled work, and defendants had no supervisory control.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, 13 NY3d 599 (2009) – Defines “gravity-related hazard.”
• Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd HDFC, 18 NY3d 1 (2011) – Elevation risk focus.
• DaSilva v. Toll GC LLC, 224 AD3d 540 (2024) – Holds permanent structures remain within §240(1).
• Ross v. Curtis-Palmer, 81 NY2d 494 (1993) – Supervisory-control test for §200.
• Hamm v. Review Assoc., 202 AD3d 934 (2022) & Garcia v. Market Assoc., 123 AD3d 661 (2014) – Dual §200 theories (means-and-methods vs. premises).
• Pereira v. Hunt/Bovis, 193 AD3d 1085 (2021) – Industrial Code liability under §241(6).

Legal Reasoning

1. Labor Law §240(1)

The defendants argued that a permanent staircase removes the scenario from §240(1). The court rejected the argument, relying on Runner and DaSilva: the dispositive question is whether the injury was the direct consequence of gravity. When the coworker lost control, the heavy rail descended, using Cagua as a counter-weight. Missing hoists, braces or other securing devices constituted a statutory breach.

2. Labor Law §200 & Common-Law Negligence

Accident categorized as “means-and-methods.” Deposition testimony and the subcontract showed that M&C Impact exclusively supervised the work. Without supervisory control, the owner and construction manager could not be liable.

3. Labor Law §241(6) (12 NYCRR 23-2.7(e))

The regulation requires safety railings on open sides of stairwells lacking enclosures. Defendants failed to prove the rule inapplicable or unviolated, leaving a triable issue.

Impact

• Permanence Irrelevant: Parties can no longer rely on the “finished staircase” defense against §240(1) claims.
• Risk Allocation: Owners/GCs retain absolute liability for gravity hazards, while subcontractors bear day-to-day control duties; contractual allocations must reflect this.
• Litigation Strategy: Defense motions must attack each statutory claim individually and produce evidence of either safety compliance or lack of supervisory control.
• Industry Practice: Finishing work on staircases now demands hoists, ropes, or temporary supports, and compliance audits must cover “completed” stair areas.
• Legislative Debate: The broadened reach of the Scaffold Law may intensify calls for reform.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Gravity-Related Hazard: Risk that a person or object will fall or be thrust because of gravity over a significant elevation differential.
• Labor Law §240(1): Imposes strict liability on owners/GCs when inadequate safety devices cause a gravity-related injury.
• Labor Law §200 (Safe Workplace): Two paths to liability—(i) means-and-methods (supervisory control) and (ii) premises condition (notice of defect).
• Industrial Code 23-2.7(e): Requires safety railings on open stairwell sides until permanent enclosures exist.
• Summary Judgment: A procedural tool allowing courts to dispose of claims where no material fact is disputed.

Conclusion

Cagua v. Bushwick Holdings reaffirms that Labor Law §240(1) protection turns on gravity, not on whether a worker stands on a temporary scaffold or a finished staircase. While owners and construction managers escaped §200 and negligence liability here because they lacked supervisory control, they remain absolutely liable where gravity-related protections are missing. The ruling thus functions both as a shield for workers encountering elevation risks during finishing work and a warning to project owners: the Scaffold Law’s reach does not end once concrete cures.