Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Since the changing of lightbulbs, by itself, is not "repairing", as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Manente v. Ropost, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 681; cf., Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture, 70 N.Y.2d 813), the Supreme Court properly granted the motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.