Opinion
December 14, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Fernando Pereira was injured while preparing the Brooklyn Bridge for sandblasting and painting. At the time the injury occurred, he was working on beams on the bridge.
Since there is no logical connection between the alleged wrong and the navigable waters, we conclude that there is no maritime nexus and, therefore, no preemption of the Labor Law by the Federal Maritime Law (see, Tompkins v. Port of N Y Auth., 217 A.D.2d 269). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1), and in denying that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as alleged a violation thereof.
In the absence of prejudice, permission to amend the bill of particulars shall be freely given (Smith v. Hovnanian Co., 218 A.D.2d 68). Here, the defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not err in allowing the plaintiffs to serve a third supplemental bill of particulars alleging specific violations of the Industrial Code. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as alleged a violation of Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) was properly denied.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.