Mitchell v. BridgeMitchell v. Bridge
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated October 28, 1993, as granted the branch of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6). The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court (Milano, J.), dated July 14, 1994, as denied the plaintiff’s motion for renewal (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).
Ordered that the order dated July 14, 1994, is reversed insofar as reviewed with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for renewal is granted, and upon renewal, the provision of the order
The plaintiff was injured in a construction accident when an outrigger of a crane crushed his foot. He commenced this action alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) and the regulations promulgated thereunder in the Industrial Code Rules (12 NYCRR 19.1 et seq.). The plaintiff alleges a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (b) (2) (iii), which provides, "Each outrigger on a mobile crane shall be visible from its actuating location”. Since this provision sets forth concrete specifications, rather than general safety standards, the defendant’s compliance with this provision is nondelegable (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,