Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because plaintiff sustained his injury when he was struck by a crane and not as the result of a fall from a height or being struck by a falling object, Supreme Court erred in denying defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action (see, Oakes v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 176 A.D.2d 1240). Therefore, plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action must be dismissed.
The court, however, properly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action based on Labor Law § 241 (6). Plaintiff was performing repair work that was clearly within the ambit of section 241 (6) (see, Lozo v Crown Zellerbach Corp., 142 A.D.2d 949). Moreover, plaintiff's failure to plead and prove any violation of a specific regulation is not fatal to his cause of action (see, Nagel v. Metzger, 103 A.D.2d 1, 7).