Filed Date: 2/17/2011
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered July 20, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the section 240 (1) claim, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Under the circumstances presented, dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was proper. Plaintiff was not protected by the statute since his duties as a flagman did not entail elevation-related risks (see Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]; Modeste v Mega Contr., Inc., 40 AD3d 255 [2007]; Jamison v County of Onondaga, 17 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2005]).
The court properly declined to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiff was sufficiently in the construction area for the purposes of section 241 (6) (see Lucas v KD Dev. Constr. Corp., 300 AD2d 634 [2002]), and contrary to defendant’s contention, there are triable issues as to whether the Industrial Code provisions relied upon by plaintiff, namely, 12 NYCRR 23-9.6 (c) (3) and (e) (8), are applicable. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.