DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Under the facts of this case the injured plaintiff was not a person entitled to the protection of the Labor Law. He was neither "permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure" ( Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 576), nor was he performing work necessary and incidental to the erection or repair of a building or structure ( see Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290). Accordingly, the Labor Law claims against the respondents, B Q Construction Corp. and Halcyon Construction Corp., were properly dismissed ( see Kopp v. Flagg Props., 302 A.D.2d 367, 367-368).
Additionally, the common-law negligence claim was also properly dismissed against the respondents since they established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and in response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact to rebut this prima facie showing ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. 68 N.Y.2d 320; Grgas v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 307 A.D.2d 982, 983).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.