Opinion
March 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Schwerzmann, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Wesley, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Joel McCune (plaintiff) was drilling a hole in a concrete wall when he was struck by a piece of metal or concrete, causing him to lose 95% of his vision in his left eye. Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. There is a question of fact whether defendants violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 19.4 (a) and § 23-1.8 (a), which require eye protection for employees engaged in certain activities. Unlike the plaintiffs in Herman v Lancaster Homes ( 145 A.D.2d 926, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 601) and Amedure v Standard Furniture Co. ( 125 A.D.2d 170), plaintiff here was drilling into concrete, which falls within the regulatory definition of "chipping, cutting or grinding any material from which particles may fly, or * * * [engaging in] any other operation which may endanger the eyes" ( 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [a]).
The court erred, however, in denying that part of defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 cause of action. Defendants established that they exercised no supervisory control over the method of plaintiff's work ( see, Comes v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877). Defendants' general supervisory authority over safety standards at the work site is insufficient to establish defendants' liability under section 200 ( see, McSweeney v Rochester Gas Elec. Corp., 216 A.D.2d 878, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 710; Mamo v Rochester Gas Elec. Corp., 209 A.D.2d 948, 949, lv dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 924).
We, therefore, modify the order on appeal by granting that part of defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 cause of action, and otherwise affirm.