Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing each cause of action insofar as it alleges defective design. Although defendant met its initial burden, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact whether the absence of a time delay and audible alarm or some type of shut-off mechanism constituted a design defect and whether that alleged defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury ( see, Ploof v Stone Constr. Equip., 221 AD2d 1008, 1009). Further, unlike a component manufacturer, defendant is not relieved of liability on the ground that the conveyor was produced in accordance with the specifications of plaintiffs employer ( see, City of Cohoes v Kestner Engrs., 226 AD2d 914).
Defendant, however, is entitled to summary judgment dismissing each cause of action insofar as it alleges failure to warn. Defendant established as a matter of law that plaintiff, an experienced repairman, was aware of the danger inherent in reaching into the machine without locking out the power, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. "There is no duty `to warn a customer already aware — through common knowledge or learning — of a specific hazard'" ( Schiller v National Presto Indus., 225 AD2d 1053, quoting Lancaster Silo Block Co. v Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 AD2d 55, 65; see also, Broadie v General Motors Corp., 216 AD2d 507).
Thus, we modify the order by granting in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing each cause of action insofar as it alleges failure to warn. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.)