You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant was required to provided eye protection for the work plaintiff was engaged in at the time his eye was injured:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while operating a nail gun to attach wood plates to a building roof when debris from a metal wire to which nails were secured, such that they could be loaded into the nail gun, flew off and hit his right eye. * * *

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers without regard to direction and control … . “In order to establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must ‘establish the violation of an Industrial Code provision which sets forth specific safety standards,’ and which ‘is applicable [to the facts] of the case'” … . Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a) requires the furnishing of eye protection equipment to employees who, inter alia, are “engaged in any . . . operation which may endanger the eyes.”

Here, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether, at the time of his accident, the plaintiff was engaged in work that “may endanger the eyes” so as to require the use of eye protection pursuant to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a) … . Chuqui v Cong. Ahavas Tzookah V’Chesed, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02166, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was struck in the eye by a piece of wire when using a nail gun, he did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the work he was doing triggered the eye-protection requirement in the Industrial Code. Therefore plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

You might also like
CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPERTY OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO ENSURE THE FLOOR AT THE WORK SITE IS NOT SLIPPERY DID NOT APPLY TO THE FLOOR OF A TRUCK OWNED AND OPERATED BY A THIRD PARTY WHICH DELIVERED MATERIALS TO THE WORK SITE; HERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE SLIPPED AND FELL ON OIL ON THE FLOOR OF THE TRUCK AS HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLOAD IT (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER, PRO SE, DRAFTED HIS APPELLATE BRIEF WITH GENAI, RESULTING IN CITATIONS TO NONEXISTENT AUTHORITY; USING GENAI TO DRAFT AN APPELLATE BRIEF AND THEN FAILING TO VERIFY THE ACCURACY AND LEGITIMACY OF THE CITATIONS IS “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WHICH WARRANTS A MONETARY SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED THE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAD BEEN FILED; THE AMENDMENT ALLEGED ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH RISER AT THE ENTRANCE TO A SHOWER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

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

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT... IF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FAILS TO INCLUDE...