Thus, the determinative issue is whether plaintiff was engaged in "altering" the paper machine. To resolve this issue, we first look to case law where, consistent with the legislative intent, "altering" has been liberally construed to include such acts as removing storm windows ( see, Ferrari v Niasher Realty, 175 AD2d 591, 592), installing cable television on a utility pole ( see, Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d 1001, 1003), affixing fire alarm tubing to a structural portion of a building ( see, Tate v Clancy-Cullen Stor. Co., 171 AD2d 292, 295), placing weatherguarding on a telephone line ( see, Garrant v New York Tel. Co., 179 AD2d 960, 962) and switching cable television attachments from a utility pole ( see, Tauriello v New York Tel. Co., 199 AD2d 377, 379). On the other hand, activities such as changing a light bulb in an illuminated sign ( see, Smith v Shell Oil Co., 85 NY2d 1000, 1002), replacing a leaking tube on a car wash machine ( see, Rennoldson v Volpe Realty Corp., 216 AD2d 912, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 837), and replacing a plywood shelf ( see, Edwards v Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main St. Assocs., 195 AD2d 592, 593) have been found to be acts of routine maintenance outside the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1).