February 21, 1986
Appeal from the Court of Claims, McMahon, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Green, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court did not err in dismissing the claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1); § 241 (6). The claims pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6) are subject to the defense of comparative negligence and require inquiry into the correlation of negligence and comparative negligence in causing the injuries complained of (Long v Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 N.Y.2d 154, 159-161; Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290). The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the accident did not result from any negligence on the part of the State, but from claimant's negligence in driving off the shoulder. Labor Law § 240 (1) is inapplicable to this case. The statute is addressed to situations in which a worker is exposed to the risk of falling from an elevated work site or being hit by an object falling from an elevated work site (see, Kahn v. Gates Constr. Corp., 103 A.D.2d 438, 441-447; Nagel v. Metzger, 103 A.D.2d 1, 10; DaBolt v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 92 A.D.2d 70, 74-75, appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 701). The contour of the highway cannot be equated with an elevated work platform or structure within the contemplation of the statute. To so hold would be to "strain the language of the statute * * * `so as to establish a cause of action and right of recovery not contemplated by the Legislature'" (DaBolt v Bethlehem Steel Corp., supra, p 75).