New York Court of Appeals, 1997

Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 20, 1997 · Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur in Memorandum

679 N.E.2d 638; 89 N.Y.2d 992; 657 N.Y.S.2d 399; 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 303 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children (Tex. App. 2015)
in the Interest of S. R.- M. C. (Tex. App. 2015)
in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Child (Tex. App. 2015)
In re JFC (Tex. 2002)
In the Interest of J.F.C. (Tex. 2002)
Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC (N.Y. 2026)
The People v. Christopher J. Weber (N.Y. 2023)
The People v. Daria N. Epakchi (N.Y. 2021)
JF Capital Advisors, LLC v. The Lightstone Group, LLC (N.Y. 2015)
Hecker v. State (N.Y. 2013)
Mohamed v. City of Watervliet (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Mohamed v. City of Watervliet (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Lamela v. City of New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2008)
Neumire v. Kraft Foods, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Garcia v. Silver Oak USA, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
State v. J.D. Posillico, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.