Interlocutory judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
The trial court, in its charge with respect to the applicable Labor Law provisions (Labor Law §§ 200, 240), erred in failing to incorporate the contentions of the parties or to otherwise relate the facts of the case to the applicable law. Additionally, the court's charge in regard to Labor Law § 200 was wholly inadequate in that it failed to advise the jury of the duties and defenses of the owner under this section (see, PJI 2:216). It is well settled that a charge that confuses and creates doubt as to the principles of law to be applied requires a new trial (see, Biener v. City of New York, 47 A.D.2d 520).
Additionally, the court erroneously admitted over objection, testimony from the plaintiffs' expert which referred to standards in the New York City Administrative Code which were enacted and became applicable after the ceiling in question was constructed (see, Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643).
We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.