ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The injured plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff), an electrician, was injured when he fell from a ladder while attempting to replace an electrical contactor located in an air-handling unit. The work performed by the plaintiff at the time of the accident involved the mere replacement of a worn-out component part in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context, and did not constitute "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building" within the meaning of Labor Law — 240(1) so as to bring the plaintiff within the protective ambit of the statute (see, Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000; Greenwood v. Gold Shearson, Lehman Hutton, 238 A.D.2d 311; Rowlett v. Great S. Bay Assocs., 237 A.D.2d 183; see also, Edwards v. Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main St. Assoc., 195 A.D.2d 592).
Similarly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Labor Law — 241(6), as the injured plaintiff's activity did not constitute repair work (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer, 81 N.Y.2d 494).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.