The IAS Court erred in rejecting as untimely the motion by Associated Engineers (Associated) for summary judgment, since it was made within 120 :days of the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 3212 (a) ( see, Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164; see also, Krug v. Jones, 252 A.D.2d 572).

Turning to the merits of. Associated's claim, it is well settled that liability for an injury sustained by a worker may not be imposed upon an engineer who was hired to assure compliance with construction plans and specifications, unless the engineer commits an affirmative act of negligence or such liability is imposed by a clear contractual provision ( Prado v. Bowne Sons, 207 A.D.2d 875). "[The] duty to inspect was not sufficient by itself to result in liability under the Labor Law since the contract only obligated defendant to report any deviations from the project design or delays to the engineer in charge, an employee of the State, and there is no evidence otherwise to indicate that defendant had any duty or authority to' direct that any action be taken by the State in response to its inspection". ( Carter v. Vollmer Assocs., 196 A.D.2d 754.) Similarly, in this case, Associated's function was to report to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The contract specifically states that it was the agent of the DEP, and there is no evidence that it had any authority to require any type of corrective action. There is nothing in the terms of the contract or plaintiff's other submissions that would raise a triable issue of fact on that issue.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Saxe, JJ.