Young v. Buffalo Color Corp‪.‬

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion of defendant, Buffalo Color Corporation (BCC), and that part of the cross motion of third-party defendant, Darin Construction Enterprises (Darin), for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. With respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law §200 claims, factual issues exist whether BCC exercised supervisory control over the manner in which the support iron was hoisted and held into place (see, Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 353). With respect to the section 241 (6) claim, factual issues exist whether BCC violated 12 NYCRR 23-2.3, which sets forth concrete specifications concerning the hoisting of structural steel components (see, Fair v 431 Fifth Ave. Assocs., ___ AD2d ___ [decided Apr. 6, 1998]), and whether such violation was a proximate cause of plaintiffs accident (see, Ares v State of New York, 80 NY2d 959, 960; Gonzalez v Sterns Dept. Stores, 211 AD2d 414, 415).