Opinion
May 28, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court did not err in granting the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. The implementing regulations cited by the plaintiff in support of this cause of action were either based upon general descriptive terms, which would not support a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, or were inapplicable to the facts of this case ( see, Ross v. Curtis Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; McCole v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 605; Vernieri v Empire Realty Co., 219 A.D.2d 593). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Sullivan and Copertino, JJ., concur.