Plaintiff was injured when he fell while installing anchors or hooks into a wall. The area where the anchors or hooks were to be placed was only six feet from the floor, one-half to one inch above plaintiff's head. It is uncontested that plaintiff did not need the elevation provided by the ramp/platform to perform his task. Under these circumstances, the motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, since plaintiff's task did not involve "a significant risk inherent in the particular task because of the relative elevation at which the task must be performed" (Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514). In short, plaintiff's task did not present an elevation risk within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240(1), but rather "the type of ordinary and usual peril a worker is commonly exposed to at a construction site" (Sousa v. Am. Ref-Fuel Co. of Hempstead, 258 A.D.2d 514, 515; see also, DeStefano v. Amtad New York, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 229; DeMayo v. 1000 N. of New York Co., 246 A.D.2d 506).
The motion court also properly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action predicated on Labor Law § 241(6), since plaintiff failed to articulate the violation of any specific Industrial Code rule or regulation (see,Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 349-350; Keegan v. Swissotel New York, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 111, 113, lv dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 858).