Opinion
November 8, 1996.
Present Denman, P.J., Pine, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the motion of the City of Rochester (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. The safety regulation relied upon by plaintiff is sufficiently specific to support that cause of action ( see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505). The court, however, properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and commonlaw negligence causes of action. Defendant did not control the method or manner of plaintiffs work ( see, Malecki v Wal-Mart Stores, 222 AD2d 1010). We therefore modify the order by denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and reinstating the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — Summary Judgment.)