Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.

679 N.E.2d 638, 89 N.Y.2d 992, 657 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 303

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 679 N.E.2d 638 (Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co., 679 N.E.2d 638, 89 N.Y.2d 992, 657 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 303 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 N.E.2d 638, 89 N.Y.2d 992, 657 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elezaj-v-pj-carlin-construction-co-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack