Plaintiff, while working on a boiler installation project, was standing on a permanent staircase, with one foot on the bottom step and the other on the third step from the bottom step, holding onto steel plates that were stacked vertically on the floor and were about chest high. Plaintiff was injured when his co-workers attempted to remove a steel plate from the pile, causing the pile to shift and fall onto him.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly dismissed since the plates he was lifting were not elevated above the work site and his activities did not otherwise involve the extraordinary elevation-related risks envisioned by that statute (see Melo v. Consolidated Edison Co., 92 N.Y.2d 909, 911; Rodriguez v. Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841; Jackson v. Williamsville Central School Dist., 229 A.D.2d 985). Moreover, even if plaintiff himself were considered to have been working at an elevation, the staircase on which he stood did not malfunction and he did not fall from it (see Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259, 269).
The Labor Law § 241(6) claim was properly dismissed since the Industrial Code sections relied upon are either non-specific or inapplicable (see Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 503-504).
We reinstate plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against the general contractor whose contractual obligation to supervise the subcontractors and to ensure safe practices was so broad and comprehensive as to displace the owner's own responsibility in that regard (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140; see also Heller v. 83rd St. Investors Ltd. Partnership, 228 A.D.2d 371, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 815).