It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted in its entirety and the complaint is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained at a wastewater treatment plant when, during the course of his work as a laborer, he placed his arm and hand into the engine compartment of a skid steer. Defendant was the owner of the treatment plant and, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed by a construction company with whom defendant had contracted to remove a portion of the roof at the plant. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim, and thus should have granted the motion in its entirety, thereby dismissing the complaint. "A finding of negligence may be based only upon the breach of a duty. If, in connection with the acts complained of, the defendant owes no duty to the plaintiff, the action must fail" ( Darby v Compagnie Natl. Air France, 96 NY2d 343, 347) and, here, defendant established as a matter of law that it owed no duty to plaintiff ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there is "`no duty to warn against a condition that can be readily observed by a reasonable use of one's senses'" ( Bombard v Central Hudson Gas Elec. Co., 205 AD2d 1018, 1020, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 923; see Breem v Long Is. Light. Co., 256 AD2d 294, lv denied 93 NY2d 802). In any event, plaintiff, "`based on his training [and] prior practice, . . . knew or should have known'" of the harm that could be caused by placing his arm and hand into the engine compartment of a skid steer ( Ganger v Anthony Cimato/ACP Partnership, 53 AD3d 1051, 1053).