Ordered that the order. is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As the defendant correctly contends, assuming arguendo that a violation of Labor Law § 27-a Lab. (3) could constitute a valid predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, the plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to set forth sufficient factual allegations to make out such as violation ( see generally, Hartnett v. New York City Tr. Auth., 86 N.Y.2d 438), or to establish the requisite connection between his injury and any such purported violation of the statute. ( see generally, Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423; Dillon v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 302; Jantzen v. Edelman of N.Y., 221 A.D.2d 594). Rather, it is clear that the plaintiff's sole remaining theory of recovery, i.e., that following his recuperation from an injury he was returned to duty in an inappropriate work assignment where he was attacked by a prisoner and injured, does not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 27-a Lab. (3). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.