12 NYCRR § 23-1.5: General Responsibility of Employers Explained

12 NYCRR § 23-1.5 is a New York Industrial Code rule. It puts three duties on employers at construction, demolition, and excavation sites. They must provide safe working conditions (subsection a), use only competent supervisors (subsection b), and keep all safety devices sound (subsection c). Subsection (c) also requires them to repair or remove damaged equipment right away. A violation can support a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 241(6).

That last point is where this rule matters most to an injured worker. § 23-1.5 sits inside Title 12, Part 23 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. People often call that body of rules the "Industrial Code." On its own, the rule tells contractors and owners what they must do to keep a job site safe. But it can also do something more. Certain parts of it become the legal basis for a lawsuit when a violation hurts a worker. The catch is that not every part of § 23-1.5 can do that. Knowing which subsection applies to your accident can be the difference between a real claim and a dead end.

The Three Core Duties Under § 23-1.5

The full text of the rule is published by the New York State Department of Labor. It breaks into three subsections. Each one sets a different duty.

§ 23-1.5(a): The General Safety Obligation

Subsection (a) is the broad promise. It says that every place where employees work "shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection for the lives, health and safety of such persons." No employer may let an employee work in conditions that break any part of Part 23.

This language covers construction, demolition, and excavation alike. It is meant to be sweeping. It is a catch-all that captures almost any unsafe condition. As you will see below, that broad reach is both its strength and, for a lawsuit, its weakness.

§ 23-1.5(b): Competency of Supervisors

Subsection (b) is about who is allowed to run the job. An employer can name as a supervisor only a person "whom a reasonable and prudent man experienced in construction, demolition or excavation work would consider competent to perform such work."

In plain terms: you cannot hand a complex, high-risk job site to someone who lacks the experience to spot a hazard, then call that compliance. The rule does not require a specific certificate or training course. It asks whether a knowledgeable person in the trade would see the supervisor as competent.

§ 23-1.5(c): Condition of Equipment and Safety Devices

Subsection (c) covers the physical condition of the tools, machines, and safety devices on site. It has three separate parts:

• § 23-1.5(c)(1): All machinery and equipment must be kept "in good repair and in safe working condition."
• § 23-1.5(c)(2): Load-carrying equipment must be designed, built, and maintained to safely support the loads it is meant to carry.
• § 23-1.5(c)(3): "All safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged."

That third part, § 23-1.5(c)(3), is the one injured workers should watch most closely. The word "immediately," used twice, is doing real legal work. The next section explains why.

How § 23-1.5 Connects to Labor Law § 241(6): The Legal Hook

This is the part of § 23-1.5 that other explanations tend to gloss over. It is also the part that decides whether a violation can support a lawsuit.

New York Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners and general contractors to provide "reasonable and adequate protection and safety" for workers doing construction, demolition, or excavation. A § 241(6) claim is different from many negligence claims. It cannot rest on a general complaint that the site was unsafe. The injured worker must point to a violation of a specific Industrial Code rule as the basis for the claim.

To win a § 241(6) claim, an injured worker generally must prove three things:

1. The injury happened during covered work (construction, demolition, or excavation);
2. A specific Industrial Code rule was violated; and
3. That violation was a proximate cause of the injury.

The phrase "specific Industrial Code provision" is where § 23-1.5 splits in two. New York courts have drawn a line again and again. On one side are rules that set a concrete, distinct standard of conduct. On the other are rules that only restate general common-law safety ideas. A rule in the first group can anchor a § 241(6) claim. A rule in the second group cannot. Courts treat it as too general to support liability under the statute, though a violation may still matter for other claims.

Here is how the courts have sorted the subsections of § 23-1.5:

• § 23-1.5(a) has been called "a general safety standard" by courts. It mostly repeats common-law safety duties. On its own, it is generally not specific enough to serve as a § 241(6) predicate.
• § 23-1.5(b) (competency of supervisors) has also been treated as too general to anchor a § 241(6) claim by itself.
• § 23-1.5(c)(1) and (c)(2) rely on broad phrases like "good repair" and "safe working condition." Courts have generally found these too vague for § 241(6) purposes.
• § 23-1.5(c)(3) is the outlier. It commands a precise action ("kept sound and operable"). It ties that action to a precise trigger and timeframe ("immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed... if damaged"). That sets a concrete standard, not a vague goal. The Appellate Division, Second Department confirmed this in Perez v. 286 Scholes St. Corp., 134 AD3d 1085 (2d Dept 2015). In that case, a worker was hurt after a grinder's safety guard had been removed. The court let the § 241(6) claim built on § 23-1.5(c)(3) move forward.

One more difference matters. A § 241(6) claim is not the same as a § 240(1) "Scaffold Law" claim. Under § 240(1), liable owners and contractors face strict liability for certain gravity-related accidents. The worker's own carelessness is generally not a defense there. Under § 241(6), the rules are different. Comparative negligence can be a defense. A jury may cut the worker's recovery if it finds the worker partly at fault. That does not bar the claim, but it can reduce it. An experienced construction accident attorney can figure out which statutes and which Industrial Code rules fit the facts of an accident.

Common Violations That Injure Workers

The clearest way to understand § 23-1.5 is to see how its subsections show up in real accidents.

Damaged safety guards left in service (§ 23-1.5(c)(3)). A grinder running without its guard. A scaffold missing a toe board. A fall-arrest harness with a frayed strap still hanging on the rack. Each one is a safety device that is no longer "sound and operable." Under (c)(3), the employer's duty is not just to fix or swap the device eventually. It is to do so right away, or pull it from the site.

Repairs that wait (§ 23-1.5(c)(3)). The repeated word "immediately" is what gives this subsection its bite. Say an employer knew about a defective safety device but left it in service for days. That delay can itself be the violation, even if the company planned to fix it later. Delay is not compliance.

Unqualified supervision (§ 23-1.5(b)). An inexperienced foreman might not realize that a trench needs shoring, or that a ladder is set at the wrong angle. That leaves workers exposed to hazards a competent supervisor would have caught. On its own, a (b) violation is harder to use as a § 241(6) predicate. But it can strengthen a separate Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence claim. Those claims focus on the defendant's actual control over the unsafe condition or the work.

General unsafe conditions (§ 23-1.5(a)). A cluttered, poorly arranged, or hazardous work area falls under the broad language of subsection (a). On its own, (a) cannot anchor a § 241(6) claim. But it can still support the overall negligence story. And a single accident often involves more than one Industrial Code violation. Some of those are specific enough to carry the claim.

§ 23-1.5 and Its Companion Regulations

§ 23-1.5 does not work in isolation. It sits alongside several related rules in Part 23, and a single accident often involves more than one. Here are a few of the most common companions:

• § 23-1.8 (Personal Protective Equipment). § 23-1.5(a) requires protection broadly. § 23-1.8 spells out the specific gear required in different situations. That includes approved hard hats where there is a danger of head injury, waterproof boots in wet conditions, and protective clothing around corrosive substances.
• § 23-2.1 (Maintenance and Housekeeping). This rule covers how materials are stored and how debris is removed. The goal is to keep walkways and work areas clear of tripping and falling hazards.
• § 23-1.7 (Protection From General Hazards). This covers protection from falling objects, overhead protection, and slippery surfaces. These hazards injure workers and bystanders alike.

These rules are written to work together. When an accident happens, the question is not only whether § 23-1.5 was broken. It is also whether the facts fit a more specific companion rule that may be easier to use as a § 241(6) predicate.

What Injured Workers Should Do

Say you were hurt on a New York construction site and think a damaged safety device or other violation played a role. A few steps generally help protect both your health and any future claim. This is general information, not legal advice. Your situation may call for different steps, so it is wise to talk with an attorney about the specifics.

• Report the injury to your supervisor or site safety officer as soon as you can. Note when you reported it and who you told.
• Document everything you can. Photograph the damaged equipment or defective safety device, the location, and the conditions around it. Write down the date, the time, and the names of any witnesses.
• Get medical attention and keep every record. The medical file often becomes central evidence.
• Consider reporting the hazard to the NYC Department of Buildings (311 or nyc.gov/buildings) or the New York State Department of Labor.
• File a workers' compensation claim. New York generally requires written notice to your employer within 30 days of the injury, and that you file the claim within two years.
• Understand that the two paths are separate. A workers' compensation claim against your employer is one track. A third-party personal injury lawsuit is another. The lawsuit might target an owner or general contractor under Labor Law § 241(6). Pursuing one does not automatically bar the other. New York generally allows three years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. Shorter notice deadlines can apply when a government entity is involved.
• Talk to a construction accident attorney early. Pinning down which Industrial Code rule was broken takes legal analysis. So does proving that the violation proximately caused the injury. As the § 23-1.5(c)(3) discussion above shows, the answer can turn on a single subsection.

NYC Construction Accident Context

These rules exist because construction is still one of the most dangerous industries in the city. According to the NYC Department of Buildings, New York City recorded hundreds of construction-related accidents in its most recent reporting period. Falls rank among the leading causes of serious injury and death on job sites. Queens, where The Orlow Firm has been based since 1982, accounts for a meaningful share of those incidents each year.

Numbers like these are why a rule as specific as § 23-1.5(c)(3) matters. A safety guard left damaged. A harness left frayed. A defect left unrepaired. Each one is the kind of preventable failure these rules are meant to stop. And each one can carry serious human cost when an employer ignores it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does NYCRR § 23-1.5 require employers to do?

12 NYCRR § 23-1.5 puts three duties on employers at construction, demolition, and excavation sites: provide reasonable protection for workers' lives and safety (subsection a), use only competent supervisors (subsection b), and keep all equipment and safety devices sound, immediately repairing or removing anything damaged (subsection c).

Can I sue for a NYCRR § 23-1.5 violation in New York?

Sometimes. A violation can support a Labor Law § 241(6) lawsuit, but only if the specific subsection is concrete enough to count as a predicate. Courts have upheld § 23-1.5(c)(3) for this purpose. Subsections (a), (b), and (c)(1)–(c)(2) are generally too broad to anchor a § 241(6) claim on their own.

What is the difference between § 23-1.5(a) and § 23-1.5(c)(3)?

Subsection (a) is a broad, general safety duty that courts view as a restatement of common-law principles — which is why it usually cannot anchor a § 241(6) claim. Subsection (c)(3) is specific: it commands that damaged safety devices be repaired or removed immediately. That precise standard is what qualifies it as a § 241(6) predicate.

How long do I have to file a construction accident lawsuit in New York?

New York generally allows three years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. A workers' compensation claim follows a separate timeline: written notice to your employer within 30 days, then a two-year filing window. Shorter deadlines apply when a government entity is a defendant, so confirm limits with an attorney early.

Sources & Official Resources

New York Laws Cited

1. New York Labor Law § 241(6) — Construction, Demolition, and Excavation Safety
2. CPLR § 214 — Statute of Limitations (Three Years for Personal Injury)

New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) — Regulations Cited 3. 12 NYCRR § 23-1.5 — General Responsibility of Employers 4. 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7 — Protection From General Hazards 5. 12 NYCRR § 23-1.8 — Personal Protective Equipment 6. 12 NYCRR § 23-2.1 — Maintenance and Housekeeping

Statistics Sources 7. NYC Department of Buildings — Construction Related Accident Reports

Helpful Resources 8. New York Workers' Compensation Board — How to File a Claim

Contact The Orlow Firm

Were you injured on a New York construction site? If you believe a violation of § 23-1.5, or another Industrial Code rule, contributed to your accident, knowing which rule applies is the first step toward knowing your options.

The Orlow Firm has represented injured construction workers across New York City since 1982. We handle scaffold falls, ladder accidents, electrocutions, and equipment-failure cases. Our results include a $3,375,000 recovery for a worker who fell 12 feet from a ladder, $2,474,000 for a worker electrocuted and thrown from a scaffold, and $1,750,000 for a worker who fell from a ladder and fractured his ankle. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Founding attorney Steven S. Orlow has more than 40 years of experience, and the firm's partners include a past president of the Queens County Bar Association. We offer a free consultation, we work on a contingency fee (no fee unless we win), and Se Habla Español.

Call (646) 647-3398 to speak with an experienced construction accident attorney about your case.