Construction Claim Rules in New York

Statutory interest rate

9% / year, fixed

Standard rate for most money judgments. A separate 2%/year rate applies specifically to consumer-debt judgments against a natural person.

Compounding: Simple

Citation: N.Y. CPLR § 5004

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-50/5004/

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed (in practice, the breach date)

CPLR 5001(a) requires interest on a sum awarded for breach of contract; 5001(b) computes it from 'the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed,' which for a breach of contract claim is generally the date of breach.

Citation: N.Y. CPLR § 5001(a)-(b)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-50/5001/

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

From date of loss (the date the damage was incurred)

CPLR 5001(a) also covers 'an act or omission depriving or otherwise interfering with title to, or possession or enjoyment of, property'; interest runs from the date the loss was incurred, or if damages were incurred at different times, the court may pick a single reasonable intermediate date.

Citation: N.Y. CPLR § 5001(a)-(b)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-50/5001/

Personal-injury tort claims are excluded from CPLR 5001 prejudgment interest entirely (interest there only starts after verdict); that carve-out doesn't apply to property damage.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule

Applies when policy language doesn't define ACV; must include contractor overhead/profit when replacement would reasonably require it.

Citation: McAnarney v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 247 N.Y. 176 (1928); Mazzocki v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Corp., 1 A.D.3d 9 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ny-supreme-court/1329610.html

The link goes to Mazzocki, the more recent of the two cases and the one that most directly established the overhead/profit rule. McAnarney (1928) predates the free full-text databases checked this pass (Justia's and FindLaw's New York archives don't reach back that far); its citation is correct but couldn't be independently linked.

ACV statute or regulation

New York regulation defines ACV by rule for property claims generally, as the lesser of reasonable repair cost or replacement cost with a substantially identical item, but it does not separately address depreciation of labor versus materials.

11 NYCRR 216.6 (Regulation 64, Standards for Prompt, Fair and Equitable Settlements Applicable to Automobile and Property/Casualty Insurance) defines actual cash value as the lesser of the amounts for which the claimant can reasonably be expected to repair the property to its pre-loss condition or replace it with an item substantially identical to the item damaged, including any sales tax on the item repaired or replaced. This is a binding regulatory definition of ACV that applies to property claims, not just auto claims, but it does not specify a materials-only depreciation rule or otherwise restrict depreciating labor cost. No New York Insurance Law section or DFS circular letter specifically banning or restricting labor-cost depreciation was located.

Citation: 11 NYCRR 216.6 (New York Insurance Regulation 64)

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/11-NYCRR-216.6

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No New York statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation on replacement-cost policies once repairs are completed was found.

11 NYCRR 216 (Regulation 64) and DFS Office of General Counsel opinions on replacement cost (including OGC Opinion No. 08-10-12) address prompt claim handling and prohibit restrictive endorsements on settlement checks, but none specifically set a deadline or procedure for paying recoverable depreciation after proof of completed repairs is submitted.

Source: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/ogco2008/rg081012.htm

DFS's general prompt-payment and unfair-claims-practices rules could arguably apply to a depreciation holdback payment as a type of claim payment, but no provision speaks to this specific scenario, so no specific holdback rule is asserted.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, but subject to four recognized exceptions

New York's Court of Appeals has held that a no-damages-for-delay clause is generally enforceable and courts hold challengers to a heavy burden, but recognized exceptions apply for delay caused by the contractee's bad faith or its willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct; delays not contemplated by the parties when they signed the contract; delays so unreasonably long that they amount to an intentional abandonment of the contract; and delays resulting from the contractee's breach of a fundamental contractual obligation.

Citation: Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 297 (1986)

Source: https://static.schlamstone.com/docs/WDF_%20Inc.%20v.%20Dormitory%20Auth.%20of%20the%20State%20of%20N.Y._%202023.PDF

RESEARCHED from scratch (prior entry was a draft citation). Confirmed real, foundational, and still actively cited (including 2023-2024 decisions) -- New York strongly enforces no-damages-for-delay clauses, but recognizes four narrow exceptions (delays caused by bad faith/willful conduct, uncontemplated delays, delays so unreasonable as to constitute abandonment, and delays resulting from breach of a fundamental obligation).

Construction contract filing deadline

6 years for breach of a written or oral contract

New York's general limitations period for an action on a contractual obligation or liability, whether express or implied, is six years from accrual, absent a more specific shorter period applying elsewhere in the CPLR or the UCC.

Citation: N.Y. CPLR § 213(2)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cvp/article-2/213/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New-employer rate 4.1% (4.025% UI plus 0.075% Re-employment Services Fund); experience-rated range 1.7% to 9.5%; 2026 taxable wage base $13,000.

New York's 2026 unemployment insurance contribution rates, inclusive of the 0.075% Re-employment Services Fund (RSF) surcharge that applies to all contributory accounts, range from a low of 1.7% (1.625% UI plus 0.075% RSF) to a high of 9.5% (9.425% UI plus 0.075% RSF). The new-employer rate is 4.1% (4.025% UI plus 0.075% RSF). New York's fiscal year 2026 state budget committed to paying off the state's federal UI loan balance, which is projected to save employers an average of roughly $100 per employee in 2026. The taxable wage base was found to be approximately $17,600 per employee via a third-party aggregator, but this could not be independently confirmed directly on the New York Department of Labor's own site during this research.

Citation: New York State Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Rate Information page

Source: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2015/wt/nys45xi_1215.pdf

Last checked: 2026-08-25

CORRECTED: this entry previously read approximately $17,600 and flagged itself as needing reconfirmation. That figure was wrong. The official NY Department of Taxation and Finance historical wage-base table (tax.ny.gov) shows the sequence 2024: $12,500, 2025: $12,800, 2026: $13,000, confirmed directly against a government-issued form rather than a secondary aggregator. Beginning 2027, the wage base is set to adjust annually to a percentage of the state average annual wage under the FY2026 budget, so this figure should be rechecked at the start of each year going forward.

Workers' compensation rating

Independent state rating bureau: the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB), not NCCI.

New York does not use NCCI advisory rates. Workers' compensation insurance rates, classifications and experience rating for New York are established by the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB), the state's own independent statistical and rating organization, subject to approval by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Citation: New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB)

Source: https://www.nycirb.org/

This research confirmed NYCIRB's name and existence directly from its own site, but could not retrieve detailed descriptive content about its statutory rate-setting role from the fetched page; the rate-setting function described here reflects NYCIRB's well-established, publicly known role rather than a directly quoted passage from nycirb.org.

Prevailing wage law

New York has its own prevailing-wage law with no minimum dollar threshold, covering essentially all public works contracts.

New York's prevailing wage requirements are set out in Article 8 (Public Construction) and Article 9 (Building Service Contracts) of the New York Labor Law. Unlike most states, New York applies no minimum dollar threshold, meaning virtually all public work contracts are covered regardless of size. The New York Department of Labor issues and updates prevailing wage schedules, with contractors required to pay updated rates retroactively (for example, to July 1 of the applicable year).

Citation: N.Y. Labor Law Article 8 and Article 9; U.S. DOL Wage and Hour Division, State Prevailing Wage Laws summary

Source: https://dol.ny.gov/prevailing-wage

OSHA plan

Public-sector-only state plan; private construction sites remain under federal OSHA

New York operates an OSHA-approved state plan covering public-sector (state and local government) employees only. Private-sector construction sites (the large majority of the industry) remain under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; NY Public Employee Safety and Health (PESH) program

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/ny

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Evidence, not automatic negligence; functions mainly as support for Labor Law §§200/240/241(6) claims

An OSHA violation alone does not automatically establish liability in New York; it functions as supporting evidence within New York's own statutory framework (Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6)), which does most of the substantive work in construction-injury cases.

Citation: NY Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241(6); general OSHA-as-evidence treatment consistent with the majority rule

Source: https://www.injuriesandaccidents.com/osha-violations-as-evidence-in-construction-accidents/

Confirmed via multiple consistent secondary legal sources this pass: NY treats OSHA violations as evidence of a safety-standard breach supporting Labor Law Sections 200/240(1)/241(6) claims, not as automatic liability or negligence per se on its own.

Third-party contribution against the employer

No general statutory-employer shield for GCs/owners; Labor Law §§240(1)/241(6)/200 impose direct, non-delegable duties on them, separate from the employer's WCL §11 protection.

New York doesn't extend a generic statutory-employer immunity to owners/GCs the way many states do. Instead, Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability for qualifying elevation-related risks, §241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty tied to a specific 12 NYCRR Part 23 provision, and §200/common law covers premises and means-and-methods control. Contribution/indemnity against the employer itself is separately limited by WCL §11 (see Piercing Immunity card).

Citation: N.Y. Labor Law §§240(1), 241(6), 200; Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003); Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger, 91 N.Y.2d 343 (1998).

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ny-court-of-appeals/1073043.html

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Contribution/indemnity against the employer is barred by WCL §11 absent a written agreement or a statutory "grave injury."

Workers' Comp. Law §§11 and 29 generally bar a direct employer tort claim; §11 sharply limits third-party contribution and indemnity against the employer to cases involving a written agreement or a statutory "grave injury."

Citation: N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law §§11, 29.

Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/WKC/11

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.

Distinctive state doctrine

Labor Law §240(1)'s absolute liability for elevation-related risks has no equivalent in most other states; several other states' entries in this source explicitly note they have no comparable rule.

Sections 240(1) and 241(6) impose liability standards (absolute liability; nondelegable duty tied to a specific regulation) well beyond ordinary negligence, unique enough that New Jersey's and DC's entries in this source both explicitly note they have no equivalent.

Citation: N.Y. Labor Law §§240(1), 241(6); Ross v. Curtis-Palmer, 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1993/81-n-y-2d-494-0.html

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke.