Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendant Polick, the general contractor, on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Polick presented an estimate for the cost of the work, controlled the work and received payment for it. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty on the general contractor to provide proper scaffolding and safety equipment and imposes absolute liability for a failure to do so (Heath v. Soloff Constr., 107 A.D.2d 507, 510-511). Polick's contention that Labor Law § 241-a applies to this action, raised for the first time on appeal, is not preserved for our review (see, Lister Elec. v. Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst, 108 A.D.2d 731, 733).
Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the homeowners. There is no question that the construction was on a single family home and that the remodeling was for additional living space. The Kepplers, as homeowners, are entitled to the exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644, 649).