Opinion
October 21, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.).
In order to prevail on a claim that an owner or contractor breached the nondelegable duty imposed by Labor Law § 241 (6), plaintiff must prove that a specific provision of the Industrial Code was violated ( Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 878; Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501-502). The sections of the Industrial Code alleged by plaintiff to have been violated are inapplicable to the device and circumstances that caused plaintiff's injuries. Dismissal of the complaint as against the moving defendant owner was appropriate, since the only basis for recovery against that defendant, under the circumstances, was by way of a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The third third-party action was properly dismissed as well.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.