DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the plaintiff's notice of appeal from a decision dated December 21, 1998, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Based upon the stipulated facts, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff did not possess a viable cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6). The first Industrial Code provision upon which the plaintiff relied, 12 NYCRR 23-9.6(c)(1), sets forth only nonspecific standards of "general regulatory criteria" (Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 502), akin to a common-law standard of reasonable care (see, Curley v. Gateway Communications, 250 A.D.2d 888, 891; Jackson v. Williamsville Cent. School Dist., 229 A.D.2d 985), rather than a concrete specification. Thus, it cannot serve as a predicate for a violation of Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra; Jiron v. China Buddhist Assn., 266 A.D.2d 347; Geiser v. Harbour Point at Northport Homeowners Assn., 248 A.D.2d 505; McCole v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 605). The other two regulations cited by the plaintiff, 12 NYCRR 23-9.6(e)(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-9.6(e)(3), are factually inapplicable to the circumstances surrounding the happening of the accident and thus do not support a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) (see, Randazzo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 271 A.D.2d 667; ___ [2d Dept., Apr. 24, 2000]; Barnes v. DeFoe/Halmer, 271 A.D.2d 387 [2d Dept., Apr. 3, 2000]; Rose v. A. Servidone, 268 A.D.2d 516; Piscotta v. St. John's Hosp., 268 A.D.2d 465; Glab v. 110-118 Riverside Tenants Corp., 262 A.D.2d 604; Fills v. Merit Oil Corp., 258 A.D.2d 556; Heizman v. Long Is. Light. Co., 251 A.D.2d 289).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.