Majority
p. 865Fourth Department, March, 2001 (March 21, 2001) Stephen K. Tucker et al., Appellants, v Edgewater Construction Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.) [722 NYS2d 189]
—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 gen
p. 866
erally, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 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 AD2d 941 ; Stasierowski v Conbow Corp., 258 AD2d 914 , 915; Rudolph v Hofstra Univ., 225 AD2d 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. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
Cases cited
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co. 81 NY2d 494 at 501-505 p. 866
- Rudolph v. Hofstra University 225 AD2d 680 at 681 p. 866