Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing his claim that the defendant violated Labor Law § 241 (6). In the absence of any evidence that the defendant, which was responsible for manufacturing and delivering structural steel to the construction site, exercised any authority or control over the work site or the work giving rise to the plaintiff's injuries, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant was not a statutory agent of either an owner or general contractor ( see, Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 318; Barker v. Menard, 237 A.D.2d 839; D'Amico v. New York Racing Assn., 203 A.D.2d 509).
Thompson, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.