Defendant, an out of possession landlord with a general right of reentry, is not liable for general maintenance defects, but only for structural failures or specific statutory violations ( see, Johnson v Urena Serv. Ctr., 227 AD2d 325). A hole in a carpet that lay wholly within the demised premises and was usually covered by an employee-placed runner is a non-structural defect over which the tenant in possession has sole control ( see, Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838).
Plaintiff's arguments premising liability on the New York State Industrial Code and Labor Law § 200 are improperly raised for the first time on appeal and we decline to consider them ( Brown v Weinreb, 183 AD2d 562, 563; Serviss v Long Is. Light. Co., 226 AD2d 442, 443). Similarly, applicability of a nuisance statute to a particular building is a question of fact ( see, Archbishopric of City of N. Y. v City of New York, 63 AD2d 912), and a fact-based argument that could have been countered if it had been made before the motion court will not be considered for the first time on appeal ( City of New York v Stack, 178 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 753). Were we to reach these arguments, we would find them to be without merit.
Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.