Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Khaled GALAWANJI, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v. 40 SUTTON PLACE CONDOMINIUM, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Grace Griffenberg et al., Defendants.
40 Sutton Place Condominium, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, Grace Griffenberg, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. City Steam, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered March 19, 1998, in an action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff damages based upon a verdict awarding plaintiff, inter alia, damages of $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, before apportionment and before setoff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We hold that 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a), which requires provision of “approved 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 A.D.2d 783, 654 N.Y.S.2d 860; Crawford v. Williams, 198 A.D.2d 48, 603 N.Y.S.2d 456, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 751, 611 N.Y.S.2d 133, 633 N.E.2d 488). 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 N.Y.2d 555, 562, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912). We find the verdict does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 08, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)