Opinion
November 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
Since plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that "a violation of a safety regulation promulgated pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) was the proximate cause of the accident" (Ares v State of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 959, 960), he was not entitled to a directed verdict. Further, as the jury could have reached its decision by a fair interpretation of the evidence, the court properly refused to set it aside (see, Pettersen v Curreri, 99 A.D.2d 774). Finally, the court's charge, which included elements of common-law negligence as to the contractor, was proper, as "Labor Law § 241 (6) is, in a sense, a hybrid, since it reiterates the general common-law standard of care and then contemplates the establishment of specific detailed rules through the Labor Commissioner's rule-making authority" (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 503).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.