Id. As such, the court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the causes of action under New York Labor Law § 241(6). In an effort to give an example of what constitutes a sufficiently “defined” passageway, the Claimant-Appellant cites Conklin v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, 49 A.D.3d 320 (1 st Dept. 2008).

. The underlying plaintiff’s only claims against the City were for Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, which impose vicarious liability on owners and general contractors. (Id).

Russin v. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 317 (1981). Labor Law Section 241(6) provides that building owners and contractors must ensure that areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work are performed “shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein . . . .” N.Y. LAB. LAW § 241(6) (McKinney 2013). A deposition of Mr. Adler, or another competent witness testifying on behalf of Safeway, is necessary to gather information on the working conditions under which Safeway employees allegedly worked, and the safety measures that may have been taken by Safeway at 90 West Street.

1.7(e)(1)................................passim N.Y. Labor Law §241(6)................................passim 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a personal injury action alleging violations of New York Labor Law §241(6) and Industrial Code §23-1.7(d). Claimant-Appellant, Kenneth J. Hecker (“Appellant”) appeals as a matter of right from the Decision and Order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, entered February 10, 2012, which affirmed the Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Minarik, J.) entered on or about September 10, 2010, which granted the motion for summary judgment of Defendant-Respondent, the State of New York (“Respondent”) and thereby dismissing the complaint.

....................................3, 11, 14 McCoy v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 75 A.D.3d 428, 904 N.Y.S.2d 50 (1st Dept. 2010) .......................................................................14, 15 Mueller v. PSEG Power New York, Inc., 83 A.D.3d 1274, 922 N.Y.S.2d 588 (3d Dept. 2011) ......................................................3, 11, 14, 17, 18 Mulvihill v. Brooklyn Law School, 22 Misc.3d 1114(a) (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2009) ......................................................................................................13 Yellen v. Rockaway Realty Associates, L.P., 243 A.D.2d 338, 664 N.Y.S.2d 535 (1st Dept. 1997) ...........................................................................................14 STATUTES N.Y. Lab. Law § 200 (McKinney 2009)..............................................................4, 18 N.Y. Lab. Law § 240(1) (McKinney 2009) ..............................................................4 N.Y. Lab. Law § 241(6) (McKinney 2009)..................................................... passim CODES 12 NYCRR 23-2.2(a) .......................................................................................