New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Labor Law § 202 (2026)
Protection of the public and of persons engaged at window cleaning and cleaning of exterior surfaces of buildings
✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 202. Protection of the public and of persons engaged at window cleaning and cleaning of exterior surfaces of buildings. The owner, lessee, agent and manager of every public building and every contractor involved shall provide such safe means for the cleaning of the windows and of exterior surfaces of such building as may be required and approved by the board of standards and appeals. The owner, lessee, agent, manager or superintendent of any such public building and every contractor involved shall not require, permit, suffer or allow any window or exterior surface of such building to be cleaned unless such means are provided to enable such work to be done in a safe manner for the prevention of accidents and for the protection of the public and of persons engaged in such work in conformity with the requirements of this chapter and the rules of the board of standards and appeals. A person engaged at cleaning windows or exterior surfaces of a public building shall use the safety devices provided for his protection. Every employer and contractor involved shall comply with this section and the rules of the board and shall require his employee, while engaged in cleaning any window or exterior surface of a public building, to use the equipment and safety devices required by this chapter and rules of the board of standards and appeals. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (1) multiple dwellings six stories or less in height located anywhere in this state; nor to (2) any building three stories or less in height in cities, towns or villages having a population of less than forty thousand; nor to (3) the windows or exterior surfaces of any building which may be exempted under any rule adopted by the board of standards and appeals. The board of standards and appeals may grant variations pursuant to the provisions of section thirty of this chapter. All existing variations heretofore made by the board relating to the cleaning of windows are hereby validated and continued in full force and effect until amended or terminated by the board. The board of standards and appeals may make rules to effectuate the purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law or regulation, local or general, the provisions of this section and the rules issued thereunder shall be applicable exclusively throughout the state and the commissioner shall have exclusive authority to enforce this section and the rules issued thereunder.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 767 N.E.2d 1136 (N.Y. 2002).
Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 767 N.E.2d 1136 (N.Y. 2002). “The two issues to be resolved on this appeal are first, whether an injured window cleaner’s claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) can coexist, and second, whether a violation of Labor Law § 202, which gives a cause of action to persons injured while cleaning…”
Williamson v. 16 West 57th Street Co., 256 A.D.2d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1998). “Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to the appellants dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action under Labor Law § 202; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed…”
Zimmer v. Chemung Cnty. Performing Arts, Inc., 482 N.E.2d 898 (N.Y. 1985). “In responding to plaintiff's argument, *526 the court distinguished section 240 (1) from the broader provisions of Labor Law § 202 which specifically mandate that employers and contractors must require employees to use available safety devices.”
Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 250 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1998). “Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that even in cases in which Labor Law § 202 clearly is applicable, an injured worker nevertheless may assert a cause of action based upon noncompliance with Labor Law § 240 where the worker was injured while cleaning a window at an elevated…”
Domaszowec v. Residential Mgmt. Grp. LLC, 135 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016). “), entered December 23, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants Residential Management Group doing business as Douglas Elliman Property Management and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation’s (collectively, 40 Fifth defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the…”
Shara v. Maine-Endwell Cent. Sch. Dist., 46 F.4th 77 (2d Cir. 2022). “As aptly stated in Munafo: “If one needed to consult more than common sense, one would need look no farther than the existence of laws such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.”
Soto v. J. Crew Inc., 998 N.E.2d 1045 (N.Y. 2013). “Viewing the statute in the context of the larger legislative scheme, it would have been anomalous for the legislature to categorically exclude *567 commercial window washers given the elevation-related risks they typically encounter and the special protection they have long…”
Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp., 211 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1995). “Plaintiff sought recovery for his injuries against the various *442 defendants pursuant to Labor Law §§202 and 240. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability pursuant to CPLR 3212 and Labor Law § 240 (1) only as against defendant Hack, granted…”
Wowk v. Broadway 280 Park Fee, LLC, 94 A.D.3d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012). “), entered April 12, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant Istithmar Building 280 Park, LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 200…”
Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp., 663 N.E.2d 1251 (N.Y. 1996). “In light of the parties’ failure to address Labor Law § 202 ("Protection of the public and of persons engaged at window cleaning and cleaning of exterior surfaces of buildings”) in their briefs, we do not reach the question whether it provides the exclusive Labor Law remedy in…”
Ferrari v. Niasher Realty, Inc., 175 A.D.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1991). “He commenced this action alleging violations of Labor Law §§202 and 240 (1). Thereafter, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.”
Bauer v. Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 275 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2000). “Following our decision, the case proceeded to trial, at which time plaintiff withdrew the causes of action predicated upon common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, leaving only the Labor Law § 202 claim for consideration by the jury.”
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.