Opinion
July 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) was properly dismissed since the plaintiff's accident did not involve the type of elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute ( see, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487; Rodriquez v. Teitz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509). Further, there was no evidence that the defendant Vanbro Corp. had the authority to direct or control the work such that it could be deemed to have been an agent of the owner or the general contractor within the meaning of the statute ( see, Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 318).
The court correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of Labor Law § 200 and failed to establish a prima facie case of common-law negligence.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J.P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.