Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion is denied.
The work engaged in by the injured plaintiff at the time of his accident, replacing a burner in a boiler, constituted the repair of a structure covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Lewis-Moors v Contel of N.Y., 78 N.Y.2d 942; Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 N.Y.2d 813; Kinsler v Lu-Four Assocs., 215 A.D.2d 631 [decided herewith]; Buckley v Radovich, 211 A.D.2d 652). However, a question of fact exists concerning whether the ladder in question was adequate under the circumstances to provide the injured plaintiff with proper support (see, Walsh v Applied Digital Data Sys., 190 A.D.2d 731; Blair v Rosen-Michaels, Inc., 146 A.D.2d 863). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.