Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered November 9, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law
Here, there was insufficient evidence that Bovis exercised supervisory control over the injured plaintiffs work at the time of the accident. It was the method and means of plaintiff’s employer, specifically in the use of the grinder, that allegedly caused the accident. Thus, the motion court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims (see Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 31 AD3d 347 , 350 [2006]).
Furthermore, plaintiffs have not pleaded the violation of any applicable provision of the Industrial Code (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494 , 502 [1993]). 12 NYCRR 23-1.12 (c) is not a catchall provision that includes the type of power tool at issue here (see Hassett v Celtic Holdings, 7 AD3d 364 [2004]). The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly dismissed. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.
Cases cited
- Lombardi v. Stout 80 NY2d 290 p. 236
- Buccini v. 1568 Broadway Associates 250 AD2d 466 at 468-469 p. 236
- Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority 31 AD3d 347 at 350 p. 236
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co. 81 NY2d 494 at 502 p. 236
- Hassett v. Celtic Holdings 7 AD3d 364 p. 236