In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York addressed a significant case involving workplace injuries during a demolition project. The court's decision, issued on June 3, 2026, in the case of Fahey v. Worship House & Outreach Ministries, Inc., has implications for how liability is determined in construction-related injuries, particularly regarding the responsibilities of city agencies and contractors.
The case centers around Edward J. Fahey, who was injured while working for Shoe Box City, Inc., a contractor hired to demolish two buildings in Brooklyn. The court's ruling affects not only Fahey but also the city agencies involved in the demolition, including the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the Department of Buildings (DOB). This decision is crucial as it clarifies the extent of liability under New York's Labor Law, particularly sections concerning workplace safety.
Fahey's injuries occurred on May 9, 2017, when a power saw he was using malfunctioned during the demolition work. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the city agencies and the owner of the properties, Worship House & Outreach Ministries, Inc., claiming violations of Labor Law sections that mandate safety measures for workers. The case was initially heard in Kings County Supreme Court, where Fahey sought summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that the city agencies failed to provide adequate safety measures as required by law.
The dispute escalated to the appellate court after the lower court denied Fahey's motion for summary judgment and granted a cross-motion by the city agencies to dismiss his claims. This led Fahey to appeal the decision, seeking to hold the city accountable for his injuries under Labor Law § 241(6), which requires owners and contractors to ensure worker safety.
The Appellate Division, comprising Judges Betsy Barros, Paul Wooten, Janice A. Taylor, and James P. McCormack, ruled on multiple aspects of the case. The court decided to modify the lower court's order, particularly regarding the liability of the city agencies. The court stated, "the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of his motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the City defendants maintained a sufficient degree of supervision or control over the means and methods of the demolition work to be held liable as an owner, contractor, or agent under Labor Law § 241(6)."
In its ruling, the court also emphasized that the city agencies did not establish a sufficient defense against liability claims. The opinion noted that while the city agencies claimed governmental immunity, the court found that they were acting in a proprietary capacity during the demolition work, making them subject to ordinary principles of tort law. This distinction is crucial, as it means that the city can be held liable for workplace injuries if they were involved in the direct supervision of the work being done.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding the city agencies' involvement in the demolition, which warranted further examination. The ruling stated, "the specific act which is alleged to have caused the plaintiff's injury was the City defendants' supervision of, and involvement in, the demolition work, during which the City defendants were acting in a proprietary capacity and, thus, subject to liability under ordinary principles of tort law."
The court's decision has significant implications for future cases involving construction injuries. It clarifies that city agencies can be held liable under Labor Law provisions if they have supervisory control over the work being performed, thus ensuring that workers are protected from unsafe conditions. This ruling reinforces the responsibility of city entities to adhere to safety regulations and provides a clearer path for injured workers to seek justice.
The ruling also sets a precedent for how liability is determined in similar cases, particularly those involving governmental entities. By affirming that city agencies can be liable when acting in a proprietary capacity, the court has opened the door for more accountability in construction-related injuries. This is particularly relevant in a city like New York, where construction is a significant part of the economy and where worker safety is a critical concern.
Looking ahead, the ruling in Fahey v. Worship House & Outreach Ministries, Inc. may lead to more scrutiny of safety practices in construction projects involving city contracts. It also raises questions about how city agencies will respond to this ruling in future projects and whether they will implement more stringent safety measures to avoid liability.
As for next steps, it remains to be seen whether the defendants will seek to appeal the decision to a higher court. The court's ruling is a pivotal moment in the ongoing discussion about workplace safety in construction and the responsibilities of those who oversee such projects. The outcome of this case could influence similar cases in the future, as workers and their advocates continue to seek justice for injuries sustained on the job.