Supreme Court properly reinstated plaintiff's General Municipal Law § 205-a claim since the conflicting allegations of the parties raised issues of fact with respect to whether defendants created or had notice of a condition constituting a violation of a statute, rule or ordinance and as to whether such a violation directly or indirectly caused plaintiff's harm ( O'Connell v. Kavanagh, 231 A.D.2d 29; Cosgriff v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 382; cf., McCullagh v. McJunkin, 240 A.D.2d 713). As defendants commendably concede in their reply brief, plaintiff's negligence action was properly instituted pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106, which significantly restricts the scope of the firefighter's rule ( see, L 1996, ch 703; Castro v. Trost, 237 A.D.2d 983). Contrary to their contention, however, Supreme Court also properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing this cause of action since issues of fact exist warranting a trial of the matter. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.