Opinion
March 21, 2001.
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O'Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.
Before: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum:
We modify the order by denying those parts of defendants' cross motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and by reinstating that claim. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is premised ( see generally, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501-505) on defendants' alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which provides for protection from slipping hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (a) (1) (i), which requires roofing brackets to be used in certain situations during the performance of work on a roof having a slope steeper than one in four. Both regulations are sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim ( see, Lessard v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 277 A.D.2d 941 [decided Nov. 13, 2000]; Stasierowski v. Conbow Corp., 258 A.D.2d 914, 915; Rudolph v Hofstra Univ., 225 A.D.2d 680, 681; see generally, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 502-505). Moreover, both regulations are applicable to the facts of this case and arguably were violated by defendants, thus warranting a trial of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.