MORRISON v. CITY OF NEW YORK

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Dormitory Authority of the State of New York which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it is dismissed, as the plaintiffs are not aggrieved thereby ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs to the defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.

The injured plaintiff, a laborer employed by the third-party defendant Pak-American Construction Mechanical Co. (hereinafter Pak), allegedly sustained personal injuries when his hand was caught between an iron valve and other debris as the valve was being lowered into a dumpster at a construction site at the premises of the defendant third-party plaintiff Queensborough Community College of the City of New York (hereinafter Queensborough). The plaintiffs commenced this action against the City of New York and Queensborough based on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The City and Queensborough then commenced a third-party action against Pak and Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (hereinafter DASNY) seeking contribution and indemnification.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants third-party plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, since the plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, rely on 12 NYCRR § 23-6.1(h), an Industrial Code provision containing insufficient concrete and specific standards relevant to the facts of this case ( see Smith v. Homart Co., 237 A.D.2d 77, 80).

The Supreme Court also properly granted summary judgment dismissing the causes of action under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The defendants third-party plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action by submitting evidence that they did not control or supervise the injured plaintiff's work ( see Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).

S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.