Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a). The allegation that defendant intentionally ignored a known hazard does not bring the case within the "intentional injury" exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law ( see, Workers' Compensation Law § 11 Work. Comp.; Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N Y, 189 A.D.2d 497, 500-501, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 748; Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp., 147 A.D.2d 433, 435; Ferrara v. American ACMI, 122 A.D.2d 930, 931; Finch v. Swingly, 42 A.D.2d 1035, 1036; see also, Patterson v. Salvation Army, 203 A.D.2d 87, 88).