- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Fahey v. Worship House & Outreach Ministries, Inc.
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03426
Background
The New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) issued emergency declarations directing demolition of two abutting buildings on a lot in Brooklyn owned by defendant Worship House & Outreach Ministries, Inc. When the owner failed to remediate the dangerous conditions, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) contracted with third-party defendant Shoe Box City, Inc. to perform the demolition. On May 9, 2017, plaintiff Edward J. Fahey, an employee of Shoe Box, allegedly sustained injuries when a hand-held power saw malfunctioned while he was cutting planks of wood during the demolition.
Plaintiff sued the City defendants under Labor Law Sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the Section 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code violations 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3) and 23-1.12(c)(1). The City defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court, Kings County (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), denied plaintiff’s motion and granted the City defendants’ cross-motion. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. The Court deleted the provision granting the City defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law Section 241(6) claim predicated on the cited Industrial Code violations, and substituted a provision denying that branch. The Court otherwise affirmed, including the denial of plaintiff’s affirmative summary judgment motion and the dismissal of the Section 240(1) claim.
The modification means that while plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the Section 241(6) claim, the City defendants are not entitled to dismissal either—leaving the specific Industrial Code violations (regarding hand-held power tools and safety equipment) as triable issues for the jury. The Labor Law Section 240(1) claim, which applies to elevation-related risks, was properly dismissed as inapplicable to a power saw malfunction.
Takeaways
This decision illustrates the distinction between Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241(6) in the demolition context. Section 240(1) applies only to elevation-related hazards, and a power tool malfunction is not within its scope. However, Section 241(6), when predicated on specific Industrial Code provisions governing hand-held power saws and safety equipment, may create viable claims that survive summary judgment even where the plaintiff cannot obtain summary judgment in their own favor. The case also highlights the City’s potential exposure as a de facto owner when it contracts for emergency demolition work.
Why It Matters
Construction injury practitioners should note this case’s treatment of the City’s role when it steps in to perform emergency demolition after an owner’s failure to comply. The City may be liable under the same Labor Law provisions as a private owner or general contractor. The survival of the Section 241(6) claim based on specific Industrial Code provisions demonstrates the importance of identifying the precise regulatory violations that support the statutory claim. While Section 240(1) was properly dismissed here, Section 241(6) remains a viable pathway for workers injured by power tool malfunctions during demolition operations.