CHUCHUCA v. << (2003)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Plaintiff alleges that he was injured on defendants' premises when a piece of wire that he was cutting struck him in the eye, and that defendants failed to provide him with safety goggles in violation of Labor Law § 241(6) and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-1.8(a).   However, the commercial dishwasher that plaintiff was repairing or “rebuilding” when injured was neither a “structure” (compare Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210 [free-standing gas station sign];  Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912 [railroad car];  Lewis-Moors v. Contel of N.Y., 78 N.Y.2d 942, 573 N.Y.S.2d 636, 578 N.E.2d 434 [telephone pole] ), nor a part of a structure (see Malczewski v. Cannon Design, 125 A.D.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 339 [computer equipment];  compare Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237 [concrete block wall];  Caraciolo v. 800 Second Ave. Condominium, 294 A.D.2d 200, 743 N.Y.S.2d 8 [water tank] ), within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13).   Therefore, even if the work that plaintiff was doing could be considered “construction work” within the meaning of section 241(6) (but see Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98, 102-103, 752 N.Y.S.2d 581, 782 N.E.2d 558), he has no claim under that statute (see id.).   While plaintiff's general negligence claim is encompassed within Labor Law § 200, the record demonstrates neither supervision nor control by defendants as would subject them to any duty to provide a safe construction site (see Rizzuto v. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 352, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816, 693 N.E.2d 1068).