In Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423 [1995] the Court held that an owner or contractor's statutory liability under GML 205-a for an injury sustained by a firefighter upon real property could only lie "if defendants were in control of the premises at the time of the firefighter's injury" (id. at 445), the amendment to the statute in 1996 evinces that this is no longer the case. In Raquet v. Braun, one of the cases decided along with Zanghi, plaintiffs, both firefighters, were injured - one plaintiff dying from his injuries, when a canopy roof on a building addition and a portion of the addition's masonry wall collapsed during a fire (Zanghi at 437). Premising their claims, in part, on GML 205-a, plaintiffs sued the owner of the building at the time of the accident and also sued the contractors involved in the construction of the canopy roof and masonry wall, which construction had occurred 12 years prior to the accident alleged (id.). In dismissing the GML 205-a claims against the contractors involved in the design and erection of the canopy roof and masonry wall, the court held that the Legislature intended section that GML 205-a liability to be asserted only against those having control over the premises and so held by looking at the amendments made to GML 205-e, which prior to the amendment in 1996, offered identical protection to police officers (id. at 444-445). Specifically, the court noted that the legislative history evinced that the Legislature intended GML 205-a liability to be asserted only against those having control over the premises because it had not been amended in the same way that GML 205-e had been (id.) The court noted that [a]ccording to a memorandum of the State Executive Department issued when section 205-e was enacted in 1989, the purpose of the bill was to give police officers the same right of action enjoyed by firefighters where injury is the result of negligent non-compliance with regulations that apply to the maintenance of premises and impose clear duties on property owners that are intended to benefit firefighters, police officers and any other person who may enter upon premises subject to regulation. In 1992, section 205-a was amended, however, to permit police officers to recover for injuries sustained while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by the police commissioner. The statement of legislative intent accompanying the bill states that liability pursuant to this section should no longer be limited to violations pertaining to the safe maintenance and control of premises. Since our police officers are required to confront dangerous conditions under many and varied circumstances, there is a need to ensure that a right of action exists regardless of where the violation causing injury or death occurs (id. 444-445). Based on the foregoing, the court in Raquet, thus, reasoned that because no similar amendment to section 205-a had been promulgated, it could be inferred that the Legislature had decided to retain the traditional premises-based liability under General Municipal Law 205-a's right of action for firefighters (id.). In that court's view, then, the defendant who owned the premises at the time of the accident could clearly be held directly liable under GML 205-a for the building code violations alleged, but defendant contractors, however, could not because they were not in control of the premises at the time of the plaintiff's accident (id. at 445.)