ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants Mairoll, Inc., Fairchild Communications Company, and Fairchild Holding Company (hereinafter the Fairchild defendants) made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiff's causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence by establishing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the hole in the wall through which the plaintiff fell (see CPLR 3212[b]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The Fairchild defendants were also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e inasmuch as none of the predicate statutory and regulatory violations alleged by the plaintiff was applicable in the present case (see Brunelle v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 347, 348).
The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the plaintiff's causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), since the plaintiff was not in the class of persons afforded protection under those provisions of the Labor Law (see Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 577), and the accident did not arise in a construction context (see Vernieri v. Empire Realty, 219 A.D.2d 593, 595).
S. MILLER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.