Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the cross motion of the subcontractor Flushing Ironworks Corp. which was to dismiss the plaintiff's causes of action under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, since issues of fact exist as to whether it controlled or supervised the work site where the plaintiff was injured (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 295; Paone v. Westwood Vil., 178 A.D.2d 518; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
Further, we agree with the Supreme Court that questions of fact exist with respect to an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241 (6). To support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), the plaintiff must allege violations of "concrete" specifications of the Industrial Code (see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 878). Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when two fellow workers, without warning, released a hoisting rope that all three men were using to lift one end of a 25-foot long steel beam. The plaintiff, who continued to hold the rope after his co-workers suddenly released it, was pulled forward, and sustained injuries upon colliding into a scaffold post. Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (a) (1), "[d]uring the final placing of structural steel members, loads shall not be released from hoisting ropes until such members are securely fastened in place". Under these circumstances, questions of fact exist as to whether the load was released before the beam was properly secured, in violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (a).
Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.