Summary
determining that 12 NYCRR 23-1.2 (c), and 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 provided no predicate for Labor Law § 241 liability as they "are only a finding of fact and a general provision of the Industrial Code, respectively"
Summary of this case from Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLCOpinion
June 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Barone, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Once the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant violated a specific regulation implemented under Labor Law § 241 (6). The regulations cited by the plaintiff, 12 NYCRR 23-1.2 (c); 23-1.5 (a), are only a finding of fact and a general provision of the Industrial Code, respectively. In order to raise a triable issue as to a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6), the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant violated a provision which contains "concrete specifications" with which the defendant must comply under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; Long v. Forest-Felhaber, 55 N.Y.2d 154; Sisu v. Wolinetz, 200 A.D.2d 663). The regulatory provisions cited by the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact necessary to defeat the defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra; Narrow v. Crane-Logan Structural Sys., 202 A.D.2d 841).
In light of the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.