Opinion
June 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the provisions thereof which granted those branches of the separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action asserted in the complaint to' recover damages under Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants-respondents.
The court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' causes of action asserted under Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) inasmuch as the accident was not caused by an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of that section ( see, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514; see also, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 491; Thompson v. Ludovico, 246 A.D.2d 642; Phillips v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 570). However, the court erred in dismissing the causes of action asserted under Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6), since the plaintiffs' opposition papers identified an alleged violation of a particular specification of the Industrial Code ( see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876; see also, White v. Farash Corp., 224 A.D.2d 978, 979).
The court properly denied Citicorp/Quotron's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action to recover damages under Labor Law § 200 Lab. and for common-law negligence, since questions of fact exist as to these claims, precluding any grant of summary judgment ( cf., Lysiak v. Murray Realty Co., 227 A.D.2d 746; Adams v. Glass Fab, 212 A.D.2d 972).
Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.