Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 14, 2008 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 3, 2007 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants. On their cross motion for summary judgment, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action predicated upon violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) by establishing, prima facie, that the activity the injured plaintiff was performing at the time of his accident constituted routine maintenance in a nonconstruction, nonexcavation, nondemolition context ( see Azad v 270 5th Realty Corp., 46 AD3d 728, 729-730; Wein v Amato Props., LLC, 30 AD3d 506, 507; Burr v Short, 285 AD2d 576, 576-577; Phillips v City of New York, 228 AD2d 570, 571). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.