Bacchus v. 676 East 179 LLC

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department modified an order granting partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241(6) claim arising from injuries caused by an unguarded grinder. The court held that the claims predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.5(c)(3) and 23-9.2(a) could proceed, but dismissed the claim predicated on § 23-1.5(c)(1) because that provision was not sufficiently specific.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was properly granted partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as it was predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.5(c)(3) and 23-9.2(a).
2. East 179 was not entitled to dismissal merely by showing that it lacked notice of the missing grinder safeguard.
3. Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(1) is not sufficiently specific to serve as a predicate for Labor Law § 241(6) liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.5(c)(3) and 23-9.2(a) based on the visibly missing grinder safeguard and the employer's notice.
2. Whether defendant 676 East 179 LLC was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim on the ground that it lacked notice of the missing safeguard.
3. Whether Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(1) is sufficiently specific to serve as a predicate for Labor Law § 241(6) liability.
4. Whether the appellate court could consider East 179's unpreserved legal argument concerning the specificity of Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(1).

Disposition

other