Plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars, which specified the Industrial Code sections on which his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was based, was not prejudicial to defendants because it did not change the theory of liability.
A question of fact is presented as to whether the spot where plaintiff fell was covered by either paragraph of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e), the Industrial Code provision invoked in the supplemental bill (see Smith v Hines GS Props., Inc.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.