NORTON v. PARK PLAZA OWNERS CORPORATION

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, an elevator repairman, reported to a building owned by the defendants, Park Plaza Owners Corporation and Park Plaza Associates (hereinafter collectively Park Plaza), to repair a defect in one of the elevators. The elevator machine room was located on the roof of the building and the entrance thereto was accessible only by traversing a fixed, permanent staircase. After completing the repairs, the plaintiff walked down this staircase and fell when the fourth step from the top partially collapsed. He commenced the instant action against Park Plaza to recover damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 200 Lab., 240 Lab.(1), and 241 Lab.(6), as well as for common-law negligence, and moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to all causes of action. The Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the causes of action to recover damages based on Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.(1) and 241 Lab.(6). We affirm.

The cause of action to recover damages under Labor Law § 240(1) was properly dismissed in view of the fact that the staircase upon which the plaintiff fell was a normal appurtenance to the building and was not designed as a safety device to protect him from an elevation-related risk ( see, Brennan v. RCP Associates, 257 A.D.2d 389 [1st Dept., Jan. 7, 1999]; Williams v. City of Albany, 245 A.D.2d 916; Dombrowski v. Schwartz, 217 A.D.2d 914; Pennacchio v. Tednick Corp., 200 A.D.2d 809; Monroe v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 186 A.D.2d 1019).

The cause of action to recover damages under Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) was also properly dismissed. In order to prevail under that statute, a plaintiff is required to plead and prove that the defendant violated a specific provision or provisions of the Industrial Code ( see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; Phillips v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 570). Here, the only such provision upon which plaintiff relies is one which relates to "ladders and ladderways" ( 12 NYCRR 23-1.21) and thus is inapplicable to the facts of this accident ( see also, Mosher v. State of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 286; Spiteri v. Chatwal Hotels, 247 A.D.2d 297; Bermel v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 231 A.D.2d 663).

Finally, the Supreme Court properly found that issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim.