New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Labor Law § 200 (2026)
General duty to protect health and safety of employees; enforcement
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 200. General duty to protect health and safety of employees; enforcement. 1. All places to which this chapter applies shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places. All machinery, equipment, and devices in such places shall be so placed, operated, guarded, and lighted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection to all such persons. The board may make rules to carry into effect the provisions of this section. 2. If the commissioner finds that any machinery, equipment, or device in any place to which this chapter applies is in a dangerous condition, or finds that any area to which this chapter applies is in a dangerous condition, he may attach a notice to such machinery, equipment, or device, or post a notice in such area warning all persons of the danger. Such notice shall prohibit the use of such machinery, equipment, or device or prohibit further work in or occupancy of such area until the dangerous condition is corrected and the notice is removed by the commissioner. Upon receipt of a written notification from the employer that the dangerous condition has been corrected, the commissioner shall make a reinspection within ten working days, and if the commissioner finds that the dangerous condition has been corrected, he shall remove the notice. The filing with the board of a petition for a review of the validity and reasonableness of the commissioner's order pursuant to section one hundred one of this chapter, shall not stay further proceedings; provided, however, that the board, in its discretion, may upon application of the petitioner stay further proceedings. The board shall grant or deny such application for a stay within seventy-two hours after the filing of the application. 3. Whenever a notice is attached or posted as provided in subdivision two of this section, the attorney general may institute a proceeding to enjoin the use of such machinery, equipment, or device or to enjoin further work in or occupancy of such area. Such proceeding shall not be stayed by the filing with the board of a petition for a review of the validity or reasonableness of a commissioner's order pursuant to section one hundred one of this chapter. 4. In the exercise of his powers to protect the health and safety of employees the commissioner shall, in municipalities which have accepted the applicability of the state building construction code, enforce the provisions of such code in factories, mercantile establishments and places of public assembly with respect to: (a) sanitation and health facilities; (b) guarding against and minimizing fire and industrial radiation hazards; (c) safety of vertical transportation; and (d) adequacy of exits.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,643
cases (819 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008).
Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “This appeal presents us with an occasion to discuss the precise standard that must be applied in determining summary judgment motions involving causes of action asserting violations of Labor Law § 200, when an accident arises out of the methods or manner of work at a work site…”
Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, 57 A.D.3d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “We did not have the opportunity under the facts of Ortega to discuss the appropriate legal standard under Labor Law § 200 when the property owner, rather than the employer, provides the equipment that causes the worker’s injury.”
Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 618 N.E.2d 82 (NY 1993). “The issue presented on these cross appeals taken by the injured plaintiff and the general contractor hired to oversee the work is whether plaintiff, whose injury resulted from back strain rather than a fall, may recover in damages from the general contractor under Labor Law §…”
Shaughnessy v. Huntington Hosp. Ass'n, 2017 NY Slip Op 1245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “, separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it and the cross claim and…”
Keener v. Cinalta Constr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “), dated July 30, 2014, as granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and so much of the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) as was predicated…”
Caban v. Plaza Constr. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 5931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “), entered February 19, 2015, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted that branch of the defendants third-party plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of…”
Kearney v. Dynegy, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 5209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “2, which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence asserted against each of them in Action Nos.”
Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “), entered September 30, 2008, as denied those branches of its cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it, and granted…”
Marquez v. L & M Dev. Partners, Inc., 141 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “), dated May 1, 2014, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment (a) dismissing the plaintiff’s causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6), and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it, (b) dismissing the…”
Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Mgmt. Corp., 83 A.D.3d 47 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “In Chowdhury v Rodriguez ( 57 AD3d 121 [2008]), we held that when a worker at a job site is injured as a result of a dangerous or defective premises condition, a property owner’s liability under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence rests upon whether there is evidence…”
Messina v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “), entered September 17, 2014, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 200. Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendants’…”
Goodwin v. Dix Hills Jewish Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 7293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “In the complaint, he asserted causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6). According to the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, on January 30, 2007, the plaintiff, a finisher employed by nonparty Jerry Percoco, was on the…”
— N.Y. Labor Law § 200(1) — 49 cases
Wilson v. Bergon Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04616 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
Medina-Arana v. Henry St. Prop. Holdings, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Est., L.P., 2021 NY Slip Op 04540 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021).
Kaczmarek v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 884 F. Supp. 768 (W.D.N.Y. 1995).
Boody v. El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 1140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.