Foreseeable Ceiling-Collapse Demolition Hazards Trigger Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Liability; Unsigned Indemnity Agreements May Satisfy Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 Upon Objective Proof of Intent

1. Introduction

Perez v ZZZ Carpentry, Inc. (2026 NY Slip Op 02293 [App Div, 2d Dept Apr. 15, 2026]) arises from a July 23, 2018 accident on a construction project owned by Angela Sun and managed by the general contractor, ZZZ Carpentry, Inc. (“ZZZ Carpentry”). ZZZ Carpentry retained A.R. Equipment, LLC (“AR Equipment”) to perform demolition. The plaintiff, Osiel Perez—an AR Equipment employee—was allegedly injured when a section of ceiling collapsed onto him.

The litigation presented three core disputes: (i) whether the ceiling-collapse incident constituted an elevation-related, foreseeable hazard covered by Labor Law § 240(1); (ii) whether ZZZ Carpentry was liable under Labor Law § 241(6) based on alleged violations of specific Industrial Code provisions governing demolition safety; and (iii) whether ZZZ Carpentry’s third-party contractual indemnification and related contract-based claims against the employer (AR Equipment) were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 for lack of a qualifying pre-accident written contract.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Second Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders:

  • It affirmed summary judgment for Perez on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against ZZZ Carpentry, holding that the ceiling collapse and the need for protective safety measures were foreseeable in the demolition context.
  • It affirmed denial of AR Equipment’s bid to dismiss ZZZ Carpentry’s third-party claims for contractual indemnification, breach of contract, and failure to procure insurance, holding that although AR Equipment showed no written contract was in effect, ZZZ Carpentry raised a triable issue as to whether AR Equipment intended to be bound to indemnify.

Separately, on motion practice, the court struck portions of AR Equipment’s reply brief that raised “latent defects” arguments for the first time on appeal.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Labor Law § 240(1): Foreseeability, collapse of permanent structures, and covered work

  • Carrillo v Circle Manor Apts. and Shipkoski v Watch Case Factory Assoc. were cited for the proposition that § 240(1) liability requires a foreseeable elevation-related risk and that defendants are liable for “normal and foreseeable consequences.” Carrillo also supplies the key framework used here: a permanent ceiling collapse can fall within § 240(1) where the collapse—and thus the need for safety devices—was foreseeable.
  • Martins v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. and Balladares v Southgate Owners Corp. reinforced that collapses of permanent structural components may trigger § 240(1) where the work conditions make collapse a foreseeable hazard.
  • Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply supplied the foreseeability standard the court applied: the plaintiff need not prove the precise manner of injury was foreseeable; it is enough that “the risk of some injury” from defendants’ conduct was foreseeable.
  • Mena v 485 Seventh Ave. Assoc. LLC and Cavanagh v Mega Contr., Inc. supported granting summary judgment where the evidentiary record shows demolition conditions created a foreseeable falling-object/elevation hazard requiring protection. Paguay v Cup of Tea, LLC was cited as a contrast (“cf.”), reflecting that not every collapse scenario will satisfy the statutory requirements absent proof of the necessary foreseeability and statutory nexus.
  • Saint v Syracuse Supply Co. was central to rejecting the defense argument that Perez’s activity (cleaning) fell outside § 240(1). The court treated “cleaning” performed in the demolition/construction setting as potentially covered work, and concluded Perez’s work was covered even if he was cleaning rather than actively demolishing at the moment of injury.

Labor Law § 241(6): Nondelegable duty and the “specific Industrial Code” requirement

  • Norero v 99-105 Third Ave. Realty, LLC and Moscati v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. were cited for the foundational § 241(6) principle: owners and general contractors have a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations.
  • Doran v JP Walsh Realty Group, LLC and Cagua v Bushwick Holdings, LLC were cited for the required showing: the plaintiff must establish that injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an applicable and sufficiently specific Industrial Code provision.
  • Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. was decisive in construing 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3). Relying on Wilinski, the court held that the phrase “by wind pressure or vibration” modifies only “be weakened,” not “fall” or “collapse.” Therefore, Perez did not need to show the ceiling fell due to wind pressure or vibration to proceed under the “fall/collapse” portion of the rule.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11: Contractual indemnity against the employer

  • Barrett v Magnetic Constr. Group Corp. (quoting the statute) and Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc. were used to frame the limited circumstances under which a third party may pursue indemnification against an injured worker’s employer—most relevantly where the claim is based on a written contract entered into prior to the accident with an express indemnification commitment.
  • Those same cases also supported the court’s enforcement principle: even an unsigned contract can satisfy Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 if there is objective evidence that the parties intended to be bound.
  • Ajche v Park Ave. Plaza Owner, LLC, Seales v Trident Structural Corp., and Podhaskie v Seventh Chelsea Assoc. supported the conclusion that, even where the employer makes a prima facie showing of “no contract in effect,” the third-party plaintiff can defeat dismissal by raising a triable issue regarding intent to indemnify based on the parties’ dealings and documentary proof.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Labor Law § 240(1): Foreseeable need for safety devices in a weakened-ceiling demolition environment

The court’s reasoning turned on whether the accident stemmed from a foreseeable elevation-related hazard and whether the work conditions made the use of protective devices foreseeable. Based largely on deposition testimony from ZZZ Carpentry’s principal and an AR Equipment foreman, Perez showed:

  • AR Equipment had already demolished the rear portion of the fourth-floor ceiling, leaving the remaining ceiling “in a weakened state.”
  • The remaining portion was held by short wood pieces and “not adequately supported.”
  • The ceiling was not “braced, shored, or secured” while workers were underneath it.
  • Industry practice at demolition sites required ceilings to be secured while work proceeded below.

Those facts made collapse—and thus the need for protective measures—foreseeable, satisfying the statutory nexus. The court also rejected the attempt to avoid § 240(1) by focusing on Perez’s task (cleaning), holding the work remained covered in these circumstances.

2) Labor Law § 241(6): Two applicable Industrial Code violations established on summary judgment

The court affirmed § 241(6) liability based on two Industrial Code provisions applicable to demolition:

  • 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3): building parts “shall not be left unguarded” in a condition that they may “fall” or “collapse” (or be weakened by wind/vibration). Applying Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., the court held Perez need not prove wind pressure or vibration caused the collapse.
  • 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c): requires continuing inspections during hand demolition operations. Perez’s proof that “no such inspections were performed” supported liability.

ZZZ Carpentry and AR Equipment failed to raise a triable factual dispute as to either violation or causation.

3) Contractual indemnification and related contract claims: triable issue despite employer’s prima facie “no contract” showing

AR Equipment, as the employer, invoked Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and made a prima facie showing that “no written contract was in effect” at the time of the accident. But the court held ZZZ Carpentry raised a triable issue of fact as to whether AR Equipment intended to indemnify ZZZ Carpentry, consistent with the rule that an unsigned contract can be enforceable where objective evidence shows intent to be bound.

4) Appellate practice: new theories in reply briefs

The panel granted Perez’s motion to strike portions of AR Equipment’s reply brief that injected “latent defects” arguments for the first time on appeal. The practical consequence is procedural: parties must preserve and properly present theories, rather than introducing new issues in reply.

C. Impact

  • Demolition safety and ceiling-collapse exposure: The decision strengthens plaintiffs’ ability to obtain summary judgment under § 240(1) where demolition activity leaves a ceiling structurally compromised and unshored, even though a “ceiling” is a permanent structure rather than a hoisted load. It underscores that “foreseeability” in this context often turns on site sequencing (partial demolition), observable weakening, and the failure to brace/shoring practices.
  • “Cleaning” within covered work: By treating cleaning in this demolition setting as covered, the decision limits defenses that try to recharacterize the task at the moment of injury to escape § 240(1).
  • Industrial Code pleading and proof: The reaffirmation of Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. makes 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) especially potent in collapse cases: plaintiffs need not prove wind pressure or vibration caused the fall/collapse. The decision also highlights 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c) as a concrete “inspection” hook for § 241(6) liability.
  • Third-party practice against employers: The ruling signals that employers cannot always defeat contractual indemnification claims merely by showing the absence of a signed agreement; objective indicia of assent may create a triable issue under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. For contractors, it emphasizes careful contract administration before work begins; for employers, it emphasizes that course-of-dealing documents may be used to infer contractual intent.
  • Appellate briefing discipline: The order striking reply-brief material reinforces that new appellate arguments—especially new factual theories—risk being disregarded entirely.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Labor Law § 240(1) (“Scaffold Law”): Imposes strict, protective liability on owners/contractors for certain gravity-related risks (falls of workers or falling objects) when proper safety devices are absent or inadequate. A key question is whether the hazard was the type the statute targets and whether safety devices were foreseeably required.
  • Foreseeability (in this context): Not whether the exact collapse happened in the exact way, but whether site conditions made some injury from collapse/falling material a predictable risk requiring protective measures.
  • Labor Law § 241(6): Requires proof of a violation of a specific Industrial Code regulation that applies to the work and proximately caused injury. It is “nondelegable,” meaning the general contractor/owner remains responsible even if subcontractors performed the work.
  • 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3): A demolition safety rule prohibiting leaving structural parts unguarded when they may fall/collapse (or be weakened by wind/vibration). After Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., “wind pressure or vibration” is not an element for “fall/collapse” claims.
  • Workers’ Compensation Law § 11: Generally bars third-party claims against an injured worker’s employer, with a narrow exception for express indemnification in a pre-accident written contract. Courts may treat unsigned writings as enforceable if objective evidence shows mutual intent to be bound.
  • Triable issue of fact: Enough conflicting evidence exists that a jury (or factfinder) must decide; summary judgment is inappropriate.

5. Conclusion

Perez v ZZZ Carpentry, Inc. reinforces that demolition-created ceiling instability can constitute a foreseeable elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240(1), even when the injured worker is performing cleaning at the time of collapse. It also strengthens Labor Law § 241(6) demolition claims by applying Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. to 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) and by treating a lack of continuing demolition inspections under 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c) as a clear basis for liability. Finally, it underscores that employer immunity under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 may be pierced where objective evidence supports an intent to indemnify, even absent a signed contract, and it cautions litigants against raising new theories in reply briefs on appeal.