OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The courts below properly concluded that plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2), failed because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction. Further, plaintiff cannot recover in negligence or pursuant to Labor Law § 200 because no triable issue of fact exists that defendant IDI Construction Company, Inc.'s on-site safety manager "control [led] the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition" (Russin v Louis N. Picciano Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317) or that IDI maintained an unreasonably dangerous work ecvironment.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.