Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Once the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant violated a specific regulation implemented under Labor Law § 241 (6). The regulations cited by the plaintiff, 12 NYCRR 23-1.2 (c); 23-1.5 (a), are only a finding of fact and a general provision of the Industrial Code, respectively. In order to raise a triable issue as to a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6), the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant violated a provision which contains "concrete specifications" with which the defendant must comply under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; Long v. Forest-Felhaber, 55 N.Y.2d 154; Sisu v. Wolinetz, 200 A.D.2d 663). The regulatory provisions cited by the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact necessary to defeat the defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra; Narrow v. Crane-Logan Structural Sys., 202 A.D.2d 841).
In light of the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.