As the IAS Court pointed out, the plain language of Labor Law § 240 (1), which simply refers to the "cleaning * * * of a building", reveals the lack of merit to the contention that routine maintenance cleaning not incidental to structural construction, repair or alteration, such as plaintiff was performing before falling off a ladder, is not a protected activity ( cf., e.g., Terry v Young Men's Hebrew Assn., 168 A.D.2d 399, affd 78 N.Y.2d 978; D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 177 A.D.2d 441). Nor was summary judgment in plaintiff's favor necessarily precluded by the fact that he was the only witness to the accident ( Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 A.D.2d 460, 462). Because the ladder from which plaintiff fell was owned and provided to him by the owner, an issue of fact exists concerning the owner's fault for the accident that precludes summary judgment in its favor as against the contractor on a theory of common-law or contractual indemnification ( see, D'Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., supra, at 442-443).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.