Opinion
June 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
Plaintiff was severely injured while working at a construction site when his hand was hit by a falling pulley assembly. The accident was clearly within the remedial scope of Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) since the falling pulley assembly had not been properly secured ( Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500-501). Under these circumstances, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment upon his Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) claim was properly granted. In "addition, the regulations cited by plaintiff, requiring, inter alia, that pulley blocks and/or similar devices be securely fastened or used with safety hooks ( see, e.g., 12 NYCRR 23-6.2 [c]), were sufficiently concrete in their specifications to support plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) cause of action ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d, supra, at 505). We have reviewed defendants-appellants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.