Haks's obligation under its consulting contract with the State Department of Transportation to, inter alia, "inspect the work of the contractor involving the maintenance and protection of traffic requirements of the contract" raises no issues of fact as to its liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Unlike Walls v. Turner Constr. Co. ( 4 NY3d 861), there are no contractual terms creating a statutory agency; there was not only a general contractor in charge of the project, but a state-employed engineer-in-charge to whom Haks reported; Haks had no duty to oversee the construction site and the trade contractors; and there was no evidence that Haks's representative had authority to control activities at the work site or to stop any unsafe work practices. Likewise, inasmuch as Haks was not present at the work site at the time of the accident and did not exercise any actual supervision or control over the work the decedent was performing, plaintiffs' common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims should also have been dismissed as against it ( see Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 NY2d 311, 316-317).