Plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims should have been dismissed as a matter of law based on his concession that the owner exercised no supervisory control over the job site and his failure to allege a violation of any specific provision of the Industrial Code ( Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877, 878). While the deposition testimony of the employer's officer described an activity that presented no elevation-related risks ( see, e.g., Rodriguez v. Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841; Corsaro v. Mt. Calvary Cemetery, 214 A.D.2d 950), such evidence, although always within the employer's control, was not offered in connection with the original motions for summary judgment, and no excuse is offered for the failure to have done so. The illegible C-2 form is hardly sufficient to show that the employer's version of the accident was before the IAS Court on the original motions. Accordingly, the employer's motion for renewal was properly denied ( see, Forteau v. Westchester County, 227 A.D.2d 245; Lee v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 226 A.D.2d 226, lv dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 916). Absent the newly proffered evidence, we perceive no issues of credibility pertinent to plaintiff's claim that he was injured by materials that fell off the scaffold he was moving.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.