DESIGNER MOCKUP · amparolawfirm.com homepage · brand tokens locked · placeholder photography
Demolition injury cases run under multiple Labor Law theories:
For falls and falling-object injuries during demolition, §240 applies. Demolition is explicitly listed as one of the enumerated activities in §240.
12 NYCRR 23-3 — “Demolition operations” — addresses demolition specifically. Subsections cover:
Specific subsections cover sequencing requirements, structural support, debris management, and worker protection during demolition. Many demolition cases cite multiple 23-3 subsections.
For common-law negligence where the GC or owner had notice of dangerous demolition practices.
Demolition often releases hazardous materials. New York demolition projects frequently involve buildings with asbestos, lead paint, mold, and other contaminants. Workers exposed during demolition can develop:
These cases run under different theories — toxic tort, occupational disease — and have different statute-of-limitations rules. The diagnosis often comes years after the exposure. We handle the analysis specific to long-latency exposure cases.
NYC requires demolition permits and DOB inspections for most demolition work. Permit violations and inspection records are part of the early case workup.
Crush injuries, traumatic brain injury, spinal injuries, fractures, lacerations, burns, respiratory injuries, and toxic exposure cases.
Same protocol as any construction injury — get medical care, report in writing, photograph the scene, save physical evidence, get witness contact info, don’t give a recorded statement, call us.
For toxic exposure cases that don’t manifest immediately: keep records of every demolition project you worked on, including dates, locations, contractors, and the materials handled. If you develop a respiratory or other condition years later, this documentation is critical.
Same categories as any New York personal injury case.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Demolition cases turn on the demolition plan, the sequencing, the structural support documentation, and the abatement records. A working developer reads these documents and recognizes when corners were cut on sequencing, when structural support was inadequate for the demolition method, or when abatement work was paper-only.
In a typical negligence case, the defense will argue your case down with comparative-fault arguments — that you weren’t paying attention, that you took a shortcut, that you should have known better. Under §240, those arguments generally cannot defeat the claim. That is why §240 cases tend to settle higher and earlier than negligence-only construction cases.