Plaintiffs' assertion of 12 N.Y.CRR § 23-1.7 (e) (2) was procedurally acceptable (see, Noetzell v. Park Ave. Hall Hous. Dev. Fund, 271 A.D.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3889), and raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the complained of tripping hazard was an integral part of plaintiff employee's work (see, Lenard v. 1251 Am. Assocs., 241 A.D.2d 391, 394). There is also a question of fact as to the general contractors' authority to control "plaintiff's activities, the manner of [the employer's] work or the overall operation and safety of this worksite" (see, Rice v. City of Cortland, 262 A.D.2d 770, 773), and whether or not the workplace danger was from a "readily observable condition" (see, Dorr v. Gen. Elec. Co., 235 A.D.2d 883, 885). We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.