Opinion
September 14, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted evidence establishing that it had no supervisory control over the removal of the "trimmi pile" and, therefore, had not violated Labor Law § 200 Lab. ( see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877). The plaintiffs' opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury ( cf., Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 506).
Furthermore, the court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' cause of action to recover damages for breach of Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) since the plaintiffs failed to allege violations of specific sections of the Industrial Code either in their complaint or bill of particulars ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra; Phelan v. State of New York, 238 A.D.2d 882; Orr v. Christa Constr., 206 A.D.2d 881).
Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.