Plaintiff's remaining causes, for violation of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), were properly dismissed since plaintiff, not having been hired by the owner of the subject premises, a contractor, or an agent of the owner or contractor, does not fall within the class of those entitled to the protection of the cited Labor Law provisions (see, Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 576-577). In addition, the particular work in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his injury, i.e., hanging an interior sign from an existing platform, was not directed at effecting the sort of significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building as would have brought the work within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.