A prerequisite to prevailing on a Labor Law § 241(6) claim is showing a violation of an Industrial Code regulation containing “concrete specifications” applicable to the alleged facts. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 505 (1993). Until recently, there has been a split within the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York as to whether 12 NYCRR § 23-4.2(k) was sufficiently specific to serve as a basis for vicarious liability to sustain a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The First, Third, and Fourth Departments(1) consistently held 12 NYCRR 23-4.2(k) was not sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim while the Second Department(2) consistently held 12 NYCRR § 23-4.2(k) was sufficiently specific. In May 2026, however, the New York Court of Appeals resolved this split by determining the language in § 23-4.2(k) contains “broad” safety concerns and thus does not contain the requisite specificity to sustain a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC. 2026 WL 1462931, 2026 N.Y. Slip. Op. 03257 (May 26, 2026).
Under 12 NYCRR § 23-4.2(k), “[p]ersons shall not be suffered or permitted to work in any area where they may be struck or endangered by any excavation equipment or by any material being dislodged or falling from such equipment.” The Mann Court held that while 12 NYCRR § 23-4.2 clearly identifies a safety concern (dangers resulting from being struck by excavation equipment), does not sufficiently provide direction for...
The Government has refuted several social media posts circulating online, claiming that ants are gathering around the fuel filler caps of vehicles using E20 petrol. The Fact Check Unit of the Pres...