Reviewed September 7, 2026.
87 Chambers, LLC v. 77 Reade, LLC, 122 AD3d 540 (1st Dept 2014), distinguished the architect’s role from the engineer’s role after an adjoining building partially collapsed. The original headline blurred that distinction.
The architect obtained dismissal. Designing a building with a cellar and subcellar and knowing excavation would occur did not establish that the architect caused the excavation within Building Code § 3309.4. Its agreement did not assign excavation responsibilities, and the evidence did not establish the necessary negligence or control.
The engineer did not obtain dismissal of the excavation, negligence and related cross claims. Evidence raised questions about whether it substantially contributed to the excavation design and methodology, including recommended changes adopted over the excavation contractor’s objections. Those questions required further resolution; the court did not finally find the engineer liable.
Review duties and actual participation
Liability analysis should examine the code applicable to the work, causation, contract scope and what each participant actually did. A professional title or general site visits do not answer the question. Preserve drawings, revisions, meeting minutes, recommendations and objections showing who selected or changed the excavation method. Designers, contractors and owners should coordinate technical responsibilities, insurance and timely incident notice before a dispute develops.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with excavation and design-related property damage litigation. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.