PACIENTE v. MBG DEVELOPMENT

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Angelo Paciente was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell down snow-and ice-covered stairs he was shoveling for his employer at a construction site owned by the defendant. The Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 cause of action since the defendant established that it did not exercise control or supervision over Paciente's work (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494; DeGennaro v. Long Is. R.R., 258 A.D.2d 496). Dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action was also proper since routine maintenance activities in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context are not protected by Labor Law § 240 (see, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 938, 939; Vanerstrom v. Strasser, 240 A.D.2d 563). The record also supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that the work performed by Paciente was not construction work within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6) (see, Constantino v. Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 272 A.D.2d 361; Luthi v. Long Is. Resource Corp., 251 A.D.2d 554; Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co., 219 A.D.2d 593).