The IAS Court properly applied the same analysis to plaintiffs' statutory and common-law theories of recovery in concluding that they had failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to defendant Otis's authority to supervise the activity that resulted in the injury. The court also properly determined that the injury was caused by the laborer's method of operation, which was unforeseeable ( see generally, Brezinski v Olympia York Water St. Co., 218 A.D.2d 633, 634, quoting Comes v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877; Balaj v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 211 A.D.2d 487, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 811).
We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.