Although a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) may provide the basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) ( see, e.g., Colucci v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 218 A.D.2d 513), the trial court correctly held that that provision of the Industrial Code has no application to the facts of this case, which involve a hazard that arose from an integral part of the work plaintiff was performing ( see, Adams v. Glass Fab, 212 A.D.2d 972; cf., Lenard v 1251 Ams. Assocs., 241 A.D.2d 391). In particular, plaintiff's injury resulted from the sudden exposure to sharp edges of beams that broke loose from a plastic strap while he was carrying the beams; the injury was not caused by an "accumulation" of "[s]harp projections" in a "passageway" or "[w]orking area" ( 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [e]). Plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred in excluding his expert's testimony is rendered academic by the inapplicability of the Industrial Code.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.