Galawanji v. 40 Sutton Place Condominium
| Decision Date | 08 June 1999 |
| Citation | 262 A.D.2d 55,691 N.Y.S.2d 436 |
| Parties | KHALED GALAWANJI et al., Respondents-Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>40 SUTTON PLACE CONDOMINIUM, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.<BR>40 SUTTON PLACE CONDOMINIUM, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>CITY STEAM, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
We hold that 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a), which requires provision of "[a]pproved eye protection equipment" to employees "while engaged in any other operation which may endanger the eyes", is specific enough for purposes of stating a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) (cf., McLoud v State of New York, 237 AD2d 783; Crawford v Williams, 198 AD2d 48, lv denied 83 NY2d 751). The record does not support appellants' contention that plaintiff would not have worn protective goggles while engaged in a grinding operation even if they had been provided. Nor does it avail appellants that plaintiff's eye was injured not by flying loose particles but by the grinder itself when it kicked back (cf., Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562). We find the verdict does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Babaxhani v. 1414 W. 4th Partners, LLC
...is specific enough for purposes of stating a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see Galawanji v. 40 Sutton Place Condo., 262 A.D.2d 55, 55, 691 N.Y.S.2d 436, 437; Dennis v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 611, 611, 758 N.Y.S.2d 661, 663) and it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that ......
-
Roque v. 475 Bldg. Co., 8998
...triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injury (see Galawanji v. 40 Sutton Place Condominium, 262 A.D.2d 55, 691 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1st Dept. 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 756, 703 N.Y.S.2d 73, 724 N.E.2d 769 [1999] ...
- Galawanji v. 40 Sutton Place Condominium
-
Buckley v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.
...any “operation which may endanger the eyes,” is specific enough to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim ( Galawanji v. 40 Sutton Place Condominium, 262 A.D.2d 55, 691 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 756, 703 N.Y.S.2d 73, 724 N.E.2d 769 [1999] ). Whether the activity in which plainti......