Plaintiff, a painter, was injured attempting to move furniture in the course of performing a painting contract in defendants' house. His cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1) was properly dismissed, since that section applies only to work performed at heights (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509). Nor does plaintiff have a cause of action under either Labor Law § 200 or § 241 (6) in view of the single family dwelling exception contained in both. Offering suggestions, lending tools, demonstrating areas that need to be painted, or selecting the paint to be used, is insufficient to cast a home-owner in liability (Schwartz v Foley, 142 A.D.2d 635, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 702). Mrs. Ginsberg's control of the work here "was no different than the type of control any homeowner has over work being done in his or her home." (Supra, at 636.) Even if she had demanded of plaintiff that he move the furniture, as alleged, the manner in which the work was to be performed still would have been left to plaintiff. The statements plaintiff attributes to Mrs. Ginsberg do not indicate anything more than that she wanted the job performed according to the contract.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.