ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the respondent Commercial Sites, Inc. The plaintiff was injured during the course of a renovation project at a building owned by the defendant Commercial Sites, Inc. (hereinafter Commercial). There is no evidence that Commercial exercised supervision or control over the work performed, or that it had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition (see, Pisciotta v. St. John's Hosp., 268 A.D.2d 465; Cappello v. Cardinal Dev. Corp., 213 A.D.2d 365).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of Commercial's cross motion which was to dismiss the common-law negligence claim and, to the extent that it was pleaded, any cause of action under Labor Law — 200, insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court also correctly concluded that the plaintiff's failure to identify a violation of any specific provision of the State Industrial Code precludes liability under Labor Law — 241(6) (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; Bailey v. Irish Dev. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 917; Ciraolo v. Melville Ct. Assocs., 221 A.D.2d 582). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against Commercial.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.