Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries he suffered while demolishing a shed on property owned by Everest in the course of a project on which Sindrome was the general contractor. Plaintiff testified that the unshored aluminum 12-foot wall of the shed fell onto him and caused him to cut his leg with the gas powered demolition saw he was using to cut through the aluminum. Plaintiff testified that before the accident occurred, he had told his supervisor he was afraid of cutting any further because "when I was cutting, the wall was like shaking and going to the side." His supervisor told him that he must continue the work. As the injury was brought about by the manner in which plaintiff performed his work and neither Everest nor Sindrome supervised or controlled plaintiffs work, plaintiff cannot recover from either of these defendants on his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims ( see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295; Vaneer v 993 Intervale Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 5 AD3d 161, 162-163). Plaintiff contends that the cause of his accident was a workplace condition, to wit, an unshored or unbraced shed wall, rather than the method he used to demolish the wall. However, based on his testimony that, while he was cutting, the wall was shaking and moving sideways, it can be inferred that the existing condition necessitated a different method of demolishing the wall. Hence, the failure to alter plaintiffs method of performing his work was his employer's ( see Brown v VJB Constr. Corp., 50 AD3d 373, 377).

The court erred, however, by dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. Labor Law § 241 (6) requires that contractors and owners "provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed" in construction, excavation and demolition work. In order to prevail on a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), a plaintiff must establish a violation of an implementing regulation which sets forth a specific standard of conduct ( see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501-504). There is no dispute that the Industrial Code sections upon which plaintiff relies here are sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Further, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendants violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1), cited by plaintiff in his bill of particulars, so as to render them liable under Labor Law § 241 (6). Section 23-1.12 (c) (1) requires that a power saw be equipped "with a movable self-adjusting guard below the base plate which will completely cover the saw blade to the depth of the teeth when such saw blade is removed from the cut." Notwithstanding defendants' argument, plaintiffs deposition testimony that the saw had very little cover on the bottom does not address the question of whether the saw was equipped in compliance with the Industrial Code.

Summary judgment was also improperly granted insofar as plaintiff sought to base his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action on alleged violations of two Industrial Code provisions not cited in his bill of particulars. Those sections are Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3 (b) (3), which provides that "[w]alls, chimneys and other parts of any . . . structure shall not be left unguarded in such condition that such parts may fall, collapse or be weakened by wind pressure or vibration," and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3 (c), which provides: " Inspection. During hand demolition operations, continuing inspections shall be made by designated persons as the work progresses to detect any hazards to any person resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material. Persons shall not be suffered or permitted to work where such hazards exist until protection has been provided by shoring, bracing or other effective means."

Preliminarily, while plaintiff identified these Code provisions only after filing the note of issue and in response to defendants' motion, defendants were not prejudiced by the delay. This is because the theory that the accident would not have occurred had the shed been properly inspected and shored was consistent with plaintiff's testimony and the allegations in the bill of particulars ( see Walker v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 11 AD3d 339, 340-341; Noetzell v Park Ave. Hall Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 271 AD2d 231). Accordingly, we grant leave to plaintiff to amend his bill of particulars to allege the provisions.

Contrary to the dissent's view, an issue of fact exists as to whether these sections apply to the facts of this case. Plaintiff clearly testified that the aluminum wall was "shaking" before it fell. While the dissent apparently infers that this vibration was a direct effect of the saw cutting through the metal, the record also permits the alternative inference that the cutting had weakened the structure, causing it to vibrate and then fall. On a motion for summary judgment, we are required to draw all favorable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party ( see Liberty Ins. Underwriters Inc. v Corpina Piergrossi Overzat Klar LLP, 78 AD3d 602, 605). If the latter scenario occurred, defendants violated the cited sections because there is no dispute that the wall was left "unguarded" during the demolition process ( 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 [b] [3]) and that defendants failed to make any inspections of the demolition work for the purpose of "detect[ing] any hazards to any person resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material" ( 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 [c]). Defendants' reliance on Smith v New York City Hous. Auth. ( 71 AD3d 985) is misplaced because in that case the record was clear that the hazard rose from the plaintiffs demolition work itself, not the structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition.

Finally, we note that reinstatement of the section 241 (6) claim, to the extent it relies on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c), would not be inconsistent with dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 claim. For the latter section to apply in a case, such as this, arising out of the means and methods of the work, the defendants must have exercised their authority to control the work in which the plaintiff was engaged ( see Mitchell v New York Univ., 12 AD3d 200). There is no evidence that defendants directed plaintiff's work in such a way that it met that standard. However, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) can attach regardless of such control ( see Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 NY2d 290, 300).