Although plaintiff contracted to perform the work on the premises leased by Null in the course of which he was injured, he is not, as Null contends, therefore disqualified from pursuing his Labor Law claims. Plaintiff did not act as general contractor. Rather, he worked principally as a laborer under a salary contract with Null, which maintained control over all hiring and paid the other workers directly. In view of the nature of his work and employment relation, and his very limited supervisory authority and control over the project, plaintiff was not excludable as a "contractor" from the Labor Law's protective ambit ( see Madden v. Trustees of Duryea Presbyt. Church, 210 AD2d 382).
Comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment as to liability on that claim since the evidence established that plaintiff's fall and consequent injury were attributable to the failure of Null and Weiser, the lessee and owner of the premises where the injury-producing work occurred, to discharge their nondelegable statutory duty to provide adequate scaffolding for plaintiff's work. On the other hand, comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim ( Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 350), and in light of the evidence showing that plaintiff himself equipped the scaffold from which he fell with the knotted, non-stress-quality floorboard that snapped under his weight, a triable issue has been raised with respect to that defense.
Since Weiser failed to establish that Null was actively negligent, and indeed it appears that Null's liability is purely statutory, Weiser's motion for summary judgment upon her claim for common-law indemnification was properly denied ( see Correia v. Professional Data Mgt., Inc., 259 AD2d 60, 65).