Opinion
December 31, 1998
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Summary Judgment.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying in its entirety the cross motion of defendant McCarty Construction, Incorporated (McCarty) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. L. Charles Rose (plaintiff) slipped while standing on an icy floor. Because there was no elevation related hazard of the type contemplated by Labor Law § 240 Lab. ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514), that claim should have been dismissed against McCarty. The Labor Law § 200 Lab. claim also should have been dismissed because McCarty did not direct, control or supervise the work that plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident ( see, Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 316-317; see also, Mamo v. Rochester Gas Elec. Corp., 209 A.D.2d 948, 949, lv dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 924), nor did McCarty have a duty to protect plaintiff against a dangerous condition that was readily observable ( see, Hill v. Corning Inc., 237 A.D.2d 881, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 90 N.Y.2d 884).
The court properly denied that part of McCarty's cross motion with respect to Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6). Contrary to McCarty's contention, McCarty was an agent of the owner for purposes of providing a safe worksite ( see, Russin v. Picciano Son, supra, at 317-318). Thus, we modify the order by granting in part the cross motion of McCarty and dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 Lab. and 240 Lab. claims.
Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.