Bale v. Pyron Corp.Bale v. Pyron Corp.
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell while employed by third-party defendant on premises owned by defendant. Plaintiff fell while walking from the construction site to a job trailer located outside a nearby building. Plaintiff was walking close to that building to avoid the wind, and he slipped and fell on snow-covered ice under an awning protecting a doorway from the run-off of water from the gutterless roof.
Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The “presence of ice below the gutterless roof raises a question of fact as to causation and [the owner’s] responsibility * * * for defects on the premises over which he retains control” (El Shammaa v Parent,
The court properly granted that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and third-party defendant’s cross motion for the same relief. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is premised upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and (e). Because the accident occurred in an open area and not on a defined walkway, passageway or path, section 23-1.7 (d) does not apply (see, Hill v Corning Inc.,