Elezaj v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.
657 N.Y.S.2d 399
NY
1997
Check Treatment
89 N.Y.2d 992 (1997)
679 N.E.2d 638
657 N.Y.S.2d 399

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.)

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued February 6, 1997.
Decided March 20, 1997.

John J. Wrenn, Brooklyn, for Fred Todino & Sons, Inc., appellant-respondent.

Coen & Geoghan, P. C., Brooklyn (Sean J. Geoghan of counsel), for Todino Sewer & Water Service, Inc., appellant-respondent.

Klar, Piergrossi & Nunez, New York City (Martin S. Rothman, Lawrence A. Piergrossi and Alyne I. Diamond), for respondent-appellant.

Kelly & McGlynn, New York City (Martin M. McGlynn of counsel), for F & V Mechanical Plumbing & Heating Corp., respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur in memorandum.

*994MEMORANDUM.

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 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 206, 210-211). The remaining arguments of the parties are without merit.

Order affirmed, etc.