The plaintiff appeals. "To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, there must be ‘no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party’ upon the evidence presented at trial" ( Bianchi v. New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 745, 746, 144 N.Y.S.3d 101, quoting Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346 ). "

This Court "may not disregard a jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence unless 'the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [moving party] that [it] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'" (Killon v Parrotta, 28 N.Y.3d 101, 107, quoting Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746; see Bianchi v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 745, 748). "In making this determination, the Court must proceed with considerable caution, 'for in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict'" (Keyser v KB Toys, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 713, 714, quoting Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 133).

That section provides, "[a]ll building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner. Material piles shall be stable under all conditions and so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare" (12 NYCRR § 23-2.1[a][1]), and the plaintiff failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the accident occurred in a "passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare" (Bianchi v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 745, 749 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ginter v Flushing Terrace, LLC, 121 A.D.3d 840, 844; Cody v State of New York, 82 A.D.3d 925, 928; see also Diaz v P & K Contr., Inc., 224 A.D.3d 405, 407).

The court further notes that plaintiff did not place this issue before the court since plaintiff only seeks summary judgment against AMC Installation based on his common-law negligence cause of action. Turning to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, plaintiff relies on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.1 (a)(1), which governs the storage of material and equipment at a jobsite. While there is case law holding that section 23-2.1 (a)(1) can only be violated if the material is stored in a "passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare" (see Bianchi v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 745, 748-749 [2d Dept 2021]; Ginter v Flushing Terrace, LLC, 121 A.D.3d 840, 844 [2d Dept 2014]), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Slowe v Lecesse Constr. Servs., LLC (192 A.D.3d 1645, 1646 [4th Dept 2021]) found that section 23-2.1 (a)(1) is not limited exclusively to obstructed thoroughfares.

The purpose of Labor Law 240 (1) is to protect against specific gravity-related accidents or elevation-related risk (Bianchi v New York City Transit Auth., 192 A.D.3d 745, 747-748 [2d Dep't 2021]). The Court notes there are no direct Labor Law claims asserted against M&M and Logozzo, however disposition of the instant motion require a review of those claims.

Notwithstanding the same, those branches of JRC's cross motion, which seeks to dismiss plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims are denied. Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work (see Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877 [1993]; Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 294 [1992]; Bianchi v. New York City Transit Authority, 192 A.D.3d 745 [2d Dept 2021]). "Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed" (DeFelice v. Seakco Const. Co., LLC, 150 A.D.3d 677, 678 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54, 61 [2d Dept 2008]; see Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, 57 A.D.3d 121, 128 [2d Dept 2008]).

Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816 [1998]). Labor Law § 241 (6) provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places." To support a claim under this section, a plaintiff'"must demonstrate a violation of a rule or regulation of the Industrial Code which gives a specific, positive command, and is applicable to the facts of the case" (Bianchi v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 745, 748, 144 N.Y.S.3d 101 [2d Dept 2021]). Addressing plaintiffs motion first, the Court finds she has established a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment in her favor (see Roblero v Bais Ruchel High Sch., Inc., supra; Gallagher v Resnick, 107 A.D.3d 942, 968 N.Y.S.2d 151 [2d Dept 2013]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra).