In merely citing general safety standards, plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded a violation of a specific provision of the Industrial Code (Labor Law § 241; see Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494). Plaintiff cannot rely on the general provisions of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3), requiring an employer to keep equipment and safety devices in proper working order ( Williams v. White Haven Mem. Park, 227 A.D.2d 923; see also Hawkins v. City of New York, 275 A.D.2d 634, 635); or 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c), which does not apply to the type of power tool that caused his accident; or 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), which is a general requirement to maintain power equipment in good operating order ( Anarumo v. Slattery Assoc., 298 A.D.2d 339, 340). His attempted reliance on Rule 19.32, on the basis of its incorporation by reference into 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(a) and 23-9.2(d), is unavailing. Those portions of Part 23 of the Industrial Code do not apply to the facts of this case, and in any event, Rule 19 was repealed after the cited sections of Part 23 were promulgated.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.