DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
An implicit precondition to the duty to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work is that the party charged with such responsibility has the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury (see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876 ; Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 317 ). Here, the defendant Abbott-Somer, Inc. (hereinafter Abbott-Somer) did not exercise any supervisory control over the work of the injured plaintiff, Anthony Passananti. Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that Abbott-Somer was entitled to dismissal of so much of the complaint as alleged a violation ofLabor Law § 200 Lab. against it.
Since Abbott-Somer is neither an owner nor a general contractor, liability cannot attach under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab. unless it is shown that it was the statutory agent of the owner or general contractor (see, Russin v. Picciano Son, supra, at 318). Abbott-Somer exercised no supervisory control over the injured plaintiff's activities and therefore cannot be deemed to have been an agent of either the owner or general contractor. Since Abbott-Somer cannot be charged with the statutory duties imposed by Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab., the causes of action alleging violations thereof were properly dismissed insofar as asserted against it.
SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.