15192-15193. JULIO GERMAN plf-ap, v. ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT, LLC def-res — ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT, LLC Third-Party plf-res, v. SPIELER & RICCA ELECTRICAL CO., INC., Third-Party def-res — [AND A SECOND THIRD-PARTY ACTION] MCP SO STRATEGIC 56, LP THIRD THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-res, v. CROSS COUNTRY CONSTRUCTION LLC THIRD THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-ap — PARAMOUNT PLUMBING CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. Third Third-Party def — Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz (D. Allen Zachary of counsel), for Julio German and Edit Fordesi, ap — Baxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville (Sim R. Shapiro of counsel), for Cross County Construction, LLC, ap — Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP, New York (Kimberly A. Ricciardi of counsel), for MCP SO Strategic 56, LP, Antonio Development, LLC, Stillman Development International, LLC, MCP 56, LLC and MCP 56 Properties, LLC, res — O’Connor, O’Connor, Hintz & Deveney, Melville (Eileen M. Baumgartner of counsel), for Spieler & Ricca Electrical Co, Inc., res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about January 10, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, granted that portion of defendants Antonio Development, LLC, Stillman Development International, LLC, MCP S0 Strategic 56, LP (MCP S0), MCP 56, LLC and MCP 56 Properties, LLC (collectively MCP defendants) and third-party defendant Spieler & Ricca Electrical Co., Inc.’s motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the causes of action related to plaintiff’s second accident, and denied third third-party defendant Cross Country Construction LLC’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the MCP defendants’ third third-party complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 12, 2014, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to reargue the January 10, 2014 order, and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The motion court properly granted the portion of the MCP defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §240(1) claim since plaintiff’s task in lifting a steel grate on the ground-level just enough to slide a copper wire underneath it did not present the sort of elevation-related risk envisioned by the statute (see Toefer v. Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d 399, 406-409 [2005]; Brooks v. City of New York, 212 AD2d 435, 435-436 [1st Dept 1995]). Plaintiff was not struck by any object, elevated or otherwise; rather, he slipped on a wet steel grate, and thus, the impetus for his fall was his slipping, not the direct consequence of gravity (see Ghany v. BC Tile Contrs., Inc., 95 AD3d 768, 769 [1st Dept 2012]).
