Opinion
3460.
Decided April 22, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry L. Crispino, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Bank of New York and the cross motions of defendants 100 Church L.L.C. and Verde Electric Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
O'Dwyer Bernstien, LLP, New York (David H. Schultz of counsel), for appellants.
Barry, McTiernan Moore, New York (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for 100 Church L.L.C., respondent.
Law Offices of Zawacki, Everett, Gray McLaughlin, New York (Christopher A. McLaughlin of counsel), for The Bank of New York Company, Inc., respondent.
Carol R. Finocchio, New York (Mary Ellen O'Brien of counsel), for Verde Electric Corp., respondent.
Wade Clark Mulcahy, New York (Christine A. Rodriguez of counsel), for G.J.F. Construction Corp., respondent.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
The Industrial Code sections cited by plaintiff as predicates for his Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action are inapplicable. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1) does not apply because plaintiff's accident did not occur in a passageway and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(2) does not apply because the debris that allegedly caused plaintiff's fall "`was an integral part of the work he was performing'" ( Alvia v. Teman Elec. Contr., Inc., 287 A.D.2d 421, 423, citing Sharrow v. Dick Corp., 233 A.D.2d 858, 860).
Plaintiff has no viable Labor Law § 200 claim against either defendant Bank of New York or defendant Verde Electric since the hazard for which he would hold those defendants accountable was the very hazard he had undertaken to remedy ( see Kolwalsy v. Conreco Co., 264 N.Y. 125, 128-129; Skinner v. GT Realty Corp. of New York, 232 A.D.2d 627). In addition, the record discloses that the bank, sued in its capacity as lessee of the premises where the accident took place, had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged hazard and did not supervise, direct, control or manage the individual trades or their workers in the performance of their work ( see Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.