At the time of the accident, the plaintiff, a 47 year-old union laborer, was working for Darcon Construction Inc. at a new construction site for P.S. 237, located at 36 Avenue P in Brooklyn. The plaintiff was injured while using a portable, gas-powered saw manufactured by Stihl. The saw was designed to cut masonry, concrete and metal, and was intended to be used with abrasive wheels. The saw did not come equipped with any guard on the bottom portion of the cutting wheel. Despite the manufacturer's specific warnings attached to the saw and in the user's manual about not using the saw to cut wood, plaintiff's employer modified the saw by attaching a wood cutting blade and instructed him to cut wooden lagging planks used as trench support. Plaintiff was cutting the lagging when it "kicked back" and the unguarded portion of the saw struck his face. The risk of "kick back" if the saw were used to cut wood was noted by the manufacturer in their manual. Plaintiff alleged violations of N.Y. Labor Law § 241(6) against the City of New York, The New York City School Construction Authority and AMCC Corp., the general contractor. In support of his Labor Law § 241(6) claim, Plaintiff relied upon a violation of Industrial Code section 23-1.12(c). Plaintiff argued that after it was fitted with a wood cutting blade and used to cut wood, the saw became a defective wood cutting circular saw in that it lacked the proper retractable guard and base. Although Defendants claimed that the subject saw could not be fitted with a guard, and that the Industrial Code was not applicable, they did not offer any expert testimony to contradict Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff sustained a complex laceration to the left side of his face requiring debridement and repair. As a result of the facial laceration, plaintiff had a decreased mandibular range of motion, loss of sensitivity to the left side of his face, and possible TMJ disorder. Plaintiff also suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which prevented him from returning to work after the accident. Defendants argued that Plaintiff had made a very good recovery with very little scarring. They also claimed that Plaintiff did not have any symptoms of PTSD.