Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cause of action based on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on that cause of action only.
The plaintiff does not have a Labor Law § 240 cause of action because his accident was not the result of an elevation-related hazard as contemplated by this statute ( see, Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 NY2d 487; Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 NY2d 841; Phillips v City of New York, 228 AD2d 570; Genco v City of New York, 211 AD2d 615; Schreiner v Cremosa Cheese Corp., 202 AD2d 657).
However, the plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been submitted to the jury. Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon all owners to comply with its requirements, regardless of the owner's direction and control over the work ( see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494; Vitaliotis v Village of Saltaire, 229 AD2d 575). Furthermore, two of the regulations cited by the plaintiff, 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (c) (1) and 23-1.30, contain "concrete specifications" that allow the plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action to withstand the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 505).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.