Case Name: 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: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-03-20
Citations: 89 N.Y.2d 992
Docket Number: 
Parties: 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.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 992–995

Head Matter:
[679 NE2d 638, 657 NYS2d 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.)
Argued February 6, 1997;
decided March 20, 1997
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
John J. Wrenn, Brooklyn, for Fred Todino & Sons, Inc., appellant-respondent.
Coen & Geoghan, P. G, Brooklyn (Sean J. Geoghan of counsel), for Todino Sewer &Water Service, Inc., appellant-respondent.
Klar, Piergrossi & Nunez, New York City (Martin S. Roth-man, 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.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
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 NY2d 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 discretion in reaching that issue" (Feinberg v Saks & Co., 56 NY2d 206, 210-211). The remaining arguments of the parties are without merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.