DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
An owner of a one- or two-family dwelling is subject to liability under Labor Law 241(6) only if he or she directed or controlled the work being performed ( see Garcia v. Petrakis, 306 A.D.2d 315; Tilton v. Gould, 303 A.D.2d 491; Duarte v. East Hills Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 493, 494; Kolakowski v. Feeney, 204 A.D.2d 693). The phrase "direct or control" is construed strictly and refers to the situation where "the owner supervises the method and manner of the work" ( Rimoldi v. Schanzer, 147 A.D.2d 541, 545; see Duda v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 32 N.Y.2d 405, 409).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendant homeowners established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Garcia v. Petrakis, supra at 316; Duarte v. East Hills Constr. Corp., supra; Stamboulis v. Stefatos, 256 A.D.2d 328, 329).
Similarly, the defendant homeowners were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action since they established that they neither controlled nor supervised the injured plaintiff's work, or had actual or constructive notice of any defective condition ( see Garcia v. Petrakis, supra at 316; Duarte v. East Hills Constr. Corp., supra at 495). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ADAMS, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.