Since plaintiff employee was employed to clear away the very debris that posed a hazard in the work place, the IAS Court properly dismissed the complaint ( Kowalsky v. Conreco Co., 264 N.Y. 125). Defendants could not have provided plaintiff with a work place that was safe from the defect that his employer was engaged to eliminate ( Senkbeil v. Board of Educ., 23 A.D.2d 587, 589, affd 18 N.Y.2d 789). The denial of amendment of a bill of particulars was justified by the age of the case, the timing of the motion to amend and the lack of special circumstances justifying the amendment ( Spielberger v. Giambalvo, 207 A.D.2d 877). As the proposed new pleadings invoke two Industrial Code sections by number but fail to include factual support for such invocation, "plaintiffs failed to * * * allege facts in their pleadings to establish a violation of [the applicable] regulation[s]" ( Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, 204 A.D.2d 878, 880, lv dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 864).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.