The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) cause of action predicated upon violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) and 23-2.1 (b). While we have held that violations of section 23-1.7 (e) (1) may support a Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) cause of action ( Farina v. Plaza Constr. Co., 238 A.D.2d 158), we agree with the motion court that the dumpster where plaintiff stepped on a nail does not constitute a "passageway" pursuant to that regulation, and, accordingly, that that regulation is not applicable to the facts at bar ( see, Cafarella v. Harrison Radiator Div., 237 A.D.2d 936; Basile v. ICF Kaiser Engrs. Corp., 227 A.D.2d 959; Adams v. Glass Fab, 212 A.D.2d 972). The other regulation upon which plaintiff relies, 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), does not sufficiently set forth "a specific standard of conduct as opposed to a general reiteration of common-law principles" for its violation to qualify as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6) cause of action ( Adams v. Glass Fab, supra, at 973; Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 502-504).
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.