Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the contention of the appellants, the plaintiff Kyle Chavious was engaged in construction work within the purview of Labor Law § 241 (6) at the time of his accident as the work involved alteration and/or repair of a building (see, 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]; DaBolt v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 92 A.D.2d 70). Further, the plaintiffs have alleged and submitted evidence of violations of specific directives of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 19.4, 19.32; Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 505; DeMartino v. CBS Auto Body Towing, 208 A.D.2d 886). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the motions which sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6). Lawrence, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.