Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.

New York Court of Appeals March 20, 1997

Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co., 679 N.E.2d 638 (N.Y. 1997)

89 N.Y.2d 992; 657 N.Y.S.2d 399; 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 303

Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur in Memorandum

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. The central argument urged on this appeal — that the Industrial Code provisions relied upon by plaintiff are too general to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 502-505) — was not preserved for our review. Although the Appellate Division properly could reach the argument in the exercise of its discretion, "[t]his Court has no power to review either the unpreserved error or the Appellate Division’s exercise of *995 discretion in reaching that issue” (Feinberg v Saks & Co., 56 NY2d 206, 210-211). The remaining arguments of the parties are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Reference

Full Case Name: Akija Elezaj, Also Known as Sadro A. Elezaj, Respondent-Appellant, v. P.J. Carlin Construction Company Et Al., Defendants, and F & v Mechanical Plumbing & Heating Corp., Respondent, and Todino Sewer & Water Service, Inc., Appellant-Respondent. (And Third-Party Actions.)
Cited By: 15 cases
Status: Published