Opinion
March 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied those branches of the defendants' respective cross motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the defendants' cross motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs have no cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). It is well established that an owner in fee will be held liable under section 240 (1) and section 241 (6) of the Labor Law even when it had no control over and did not benefit from the work performed on its land (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555; Celestine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, affd 59 N.Y.2d 938). In addition, this Court has held that the owner of an easement was an "owner" under Labor Law § 241 (6) when he contracted for the work to be performed that would exclusively benefit his property (see, Copertino v. Ward, 100 A.D.2d 565). In this case, however, neither the Town of Eastchester nor New York Telephone Company was an owner in fee, contracted for, or benefited from the work done by the injured plaintiff. Therefore, neither the Town of Eastchester nor New York Telephone Company are "owners" under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) (see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, supra).
In any event, the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) must be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of a specific implementing regulation promulgated under that statute (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; DeMattia v. Van Westerhaut Mola Social Sport Club, 204 A.D.2d 594).
In addition, the plaintiffs have no cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200, which is a codification of common-law negligence, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that either the Town of Eastchester or New York Telephone Company had any control over the work performed by the plaintiff (see, Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290). Santucci, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.