Opinion
June 8, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
We hold that 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a), which requires provision of "[a] pproved eye protection equipment" to employees "while engaged in any other operation which may endanger the eyes", is specific enough for purposes of stating a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) ( cf., McLoud v. State of New York, 237 A.D.2d 783; Crawford v. Williams, 198 A.D.2d 48, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 751). The record does not support appellants' contention that plaintiff would not have worn protective goggles while engaged in a grinding operation even if they had been provided. Nor does it avail appellants that plaintiff's eye was injured not by flying loose particles but by the grinder itself when it kicked back ( cf., Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 562). We find the verdict does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.