Opinion
Argued May 21, 1999
June 28, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated May 8, 1998, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for injuries under Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6).
Monsour, Winn, Kurland Warner, LLP, Lake Success, N Y (Peter Kassimatis of counsel), for appellants.
Brody, Fabiani Cohen, New York, N.Y. (Thomas G. Connolly of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Dwyer Brennan, New York, N.Y. (Robert K. Erlanger of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs contend only that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether there was a violation of Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6), citing noncompliance with two sections of the Industrial Code, 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(2), and (3). The Supreme Court found, inter alia, that there were no such violations and dismissed the complaint. We agree.
The defendants presented unrebutted evidence in admissible form sufficient to show compliance with the provisions of 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(2) as a matter of law. They also demonstrated the inapplicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(3). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with respect to claims asserted pursuant to Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; see also, Fills v. Merit Oil Corp., 258 A.D.2d 556 [2d Dept., Feb. 16, 1999]).