Indeed, in Lombardi v. Stout (supra), which involved the removal of a tree from a building site, and Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture ( 70 N.Y.2d 813), relating to repair work on an electrical sign on the building in question therein, the Court declined to so restrict the ambit of Labor Law § 240. As the Court of Appeals explained in Lewis-Moors v. Contel of N.Y. ( 78 N.Y.2d 942, 943), when it found a telephone pole having hardware, cable and support systems to constitute a structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), "a `structure' is `any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner'" (see also, Atwell v Mountain Ltd., 184 A.D.2d 1065; Garrant v. New York Tel. Co., 179 A.D.2d 960). Consequently, plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment on his claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240.