You are here: / / Failure to Identify in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars the Specific...

Failure to Identify in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars the Specific Code Provision(s) Alleged to Have Been Violated Is Not Fatal to a Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action

The Second Department noted that the failure to identify, in the complaint and bill of particulars, the specific code provision alleged to have been violated (in support of a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action) is not a fatal defect:

Although a plaintiff asserting a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action must allege a violation of a specific and concrete provision of the Industrial Code …, the failure to identify the code provision in the complaint or bill of particulars is not fatal to such a claim … . Here, the plaintiff’s belated allegations that Cook violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1), 23-1.21(b)(3)(i), 23-1.21(b)(3)(iv), 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii), and 23-1.21(e)(2) involved no new factual allegations, raised no new theories of liability, and caused no prejudice … . Moreover, these code provisions set forth specific, rather than general, safety standards, and are sufficient to support a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . Przyborowski v A&M Cook LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05852, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT).
STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY TRANSFERRED THIS DERIVATIVE NEGLECT PROCEEDING TO THE UNKECHAUG INDIAN NATION PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPOSITE LIEN ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY WAS NOT INVALID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SHOWN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HIRED THE RESPONDENT IN SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS; THE LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISCHARGED ON THE GROUND THE AMOUNT WAS WILFULLY EXAGGERATED, A FINDING WHICH CAN ONLY BE MADE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Dismissed for “Neglect to Proceed”—Criteria Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Term “Entrustment” in a Policy Exclusion (In the Context of Entrustment... Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for the General...