Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. The allegation that defendant violated 6 NYCRR 211.2 is a sufficient predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Ruotolo v. State of New York, 83 N.Y.2d 248; Phalen v. Kane, 192 A.D.2d 186; Costantini v. Benedetto, 190 A.D.2d 888). We decline to adopt the reasoning of Supreme Court in Ramos v. Doesn't Matter Realty Corp. ( 153 Misc.2d 80) that a statute or regulation that merely codifies a common-law duty cannot serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In any event, 6 NYCRR 211.2 is not a mere codification of common-law nuisance.

We reject defendant's further argument that 6 N.Y.CRR 211.2 is too vague to provide the basis for a cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Delford Indus. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 126 Misc.2d 355). Defendant's remaining argument, that the Air Pollution Control Act and its corresponding regulations do not create a private right of action, is raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, it is not preserved for review (see, Matter of Ouimet v. Ouimet, 186 A.D.2d 1002; MacMaster v. Sardina, 182 A.D.2d 1132, 1133).