Plaintiff, as limited by his brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 12, 2005, which denied his cross motion for summary judgment on his labor law and common law negligence claims, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Defendant Spectra a/k/a Spectra Photo Art, Inc. cross appeals from that portion of the aforesaid order which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims.

PER CURIAM:
Order (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 12, 2005, modified to deny defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and, as modified affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) was unwarranted since issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was repairing or performing routine maintenance on the rolling steel door (see Esposito v New York City Industrial Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526 [2003]; Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]). Defendant Spectra's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was properly denied since a triable issue of fact exists as to whether [*2]Spectra had supervision and control over the manner in which the work was undertaken (see Mejia v. Levenbaum, 30 AD3d 262 [2006]).

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: January 30, 2007