Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eugene Buckley v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


January 17, 2012

EUGENE BUCKLEY,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Buckley v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.

Decided on January 17, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered June 15, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action based on Labor Law § 241(6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was employed as an iron worker on the Triborough Bridge. He was injured when, while retrieving an electrical cord from a basket lift, the loose end of his lanyard became caught and suddenly released. The lanyard snapped back causing the hook end to hit his eye. That portion of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) section 23-1.8(a), which requires such protective eyewear under circumstances where an employee is engaged in any "operation which may endanger the eyes," is specific enough to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim (Galawanji v 40 Sutton Place Condominium, 262 AD2d 55 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 756 [1999]). Whether the activity in which plaintiff was engaged presented a foreseeable risk of eye injury, requiring the furnishing of eye protection "suitable for the hazard involved," pursuant to Industrial Code § 23-1.8(a), is a question for the jury (see Fresco v 157 E. 72nd St. Condominium, 2 AD3d 326, 328 [2003], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 630 [2004]).

We have examined defendant's other contentions, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 17, 2012

CLERK

20120117

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.