Opinion
March 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which dismissed the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6); as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the provisions of the order dated November 22, 1994, which granted those branches of the appellants' cross motions which were to dismiss that cause of action insofar as asserted against the appellants are vacated, and those branches of the appellants' cross motions which were for summary judgment to dismiss that cause of action are denied.
The specific standards of conduct required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 allow the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494). The plaintiff's affidavit submitted in opposition to the cross motions for summary judgment raises a question of fact as to whether any of the safety devices required by the regulation were provided for his use.
However, the Labor Law § 200 cause of action asserted against the defendant Hofstra University was properly dismissed, as there was no showing that Hofstra University had any direction or control over the work giving rise to this accident (see, Comes v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876; Simms v City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 332; Pazmino v Woodside Dev. Co., 212 A.D.2d 520; Mamo v Rochester Gas Elec. Corp., 209 A.D.2d 948; Tambasco v Norton Co., 207 A.D.2d 618). Balletta, J.P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.