Plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 Lab. and common-law negligence claims were properly dismissed for lack of evidence that defendant directed or controlled the contractor's work (see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877). Plaintiff's argument that he was improperly precluded from putting in evidence of such direction and control by the trial court's incorrect ruling that he had rested his case is not reviewable, the relevant portions of the trial transcripts not having been included in the record on appeal (see, Kahn v. City of New York, 37 A.D.2d 520, 521, affd 30 N.Y.2d 690; Serpe v. Eyris Prods., 243 A.D.2d 375, 380). The Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) claim was properly dismissed since plaintiff was not faced with an elevation-related hazard (see, Ross Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500-501). The plywood plank was not a device designed to protect workers from an elevation-related hazard. Plaintiff's motion to amend his pleadings to allege violations of the Industrial Code, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d),(e) and (f), was properly denied since the claimed violations are without support in the trial testimony.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.