Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint. There is no indication that the defendant was an "owner" (see, Wendel v Pillsbury Corp., 205 A.D.2d 527), "contractor" (see, Russin v Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311; Townsend v. Nenni Equip. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 825; cf., Kenny v. Fuller Co., 87 A.D.2d 183), or "agent" (see, Russin v. Picciano Son, supra; D'Amico v. New York Racing Assn., 203 A.D.2d 509; Paone v. Westwood Vil., 178 A.D.2d 518; cf., McGlynn v. Brooklyn Hosp.-Caledonian Hosp., 209 A.D.2d 486), so as to render it liable pursuant to any provision of the Labor Law alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, there is no indication that the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs based upon common-law negligence (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.