Rudolph v. Hofstra University

*681The specific standards of conduct required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 allow the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494). The plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to the cross motions for summary judgment raises a question of fact as to whether any of the safety devices required by the regulation were provided for his use.

However, the Labor Law § 200 cause of action asserted against the defendant Hofstra University was properly dismissed, as there was no showing that Hofstra University…