New York Labor Law 241 (6)

Labor Law 241 (6) imposes a "nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers" (Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 878, 631 N.E.2d 110, 609 N.Y.S.2d 168 [1993]; see Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 348, 693 N.E.2d 1068, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816 [1998]; Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501-502, 618 N.E.2d 82, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1993]; Dickson v. Fantis Foods, 235 AD2d 452, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1005 [1997]). To recover on a cause of action alleging a violation Labor Law 241 (6), a plaintiff must establish the violation of an Industrial Code provision which sets forth specific safety standards (see Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra at 503-505). 12 NYCRR 23-5.1 has been held insufficiently concrete or specific to support a Labor Law 241 (6) claim (see Schiulaz v. Arnell Constr. Corp., 261 AD2d 247, 690 N.Y.S.2d 226 [1999]). 12 NYCRR 23-1.15, which sets forth standards for safety railings, does not apply here because plaintiffs do not allege that plaintiff Pasquale Iavarone's accident was the result of an inadequate safety railing on the scaffold. 12 NYCRR 23-1.16 applies only where a worker was provided with safety belts, harnesses, tail lines and lifelines in the first instance (see Dzieran v. 1800 Boston Rd., LLC, 25 AD3d 336, 808 N.Y.S.2d 36 [2006]).