Opinion
November 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.).
Evidence at trial that appellant, plaintiff's employer, directed plaintiff to do demolition work without safety glasses was sufficient to show a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) ( 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [a]). There is no merit to appellant's contention that Labor Law § 241 (6), which imposes a nondelegable duty on owners of demolition sites to provide a safe place of employment, does not apply to out-of-possession owners, such as defendants, who exercise no control or supervision over the work, that plaintiff therefore had no claim against defendant owners, and that defendant owners therefore could have no third-party claim against appellant (Celestine v City of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 938, affg 86 A.D.2d 592; see also, Kerr v Rochester Gas Elec. Corp., 113 A.D.2d 412, 416; Pouso v City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 560, 562). Nor is there merit to appellant's contention that the damages awarded for past and future pain and suffering are excessive, given the evidence that plaintiff was permanently blinded in one eye, suffers constant physical pain, suffered excruciating pain at the time of the accident, has required repeated hospitalizations, was disfigured by the injury, lost his job and is unemployable, and has endured substantial emotional pain including a loss of self-esteem and a diminished social life (compare, Simon v Sears, Roebuck Co., 124 A.D.2d 655, 656 [2d Dept 1986], citing Alferoff v Casagrande, 122 A.D.2d 183).
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.