aintiff was engaged, i.e. , applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard, was "more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification than to ‘altering’ for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1)," since it merely "changed the outward appearance of the billboard, but did not change the billboard's structure"); Belding v. Verizon N.Y., Inc. , 14 N.Y.3d 751, 752-53, 898 N.Y.S.2d 539, 925 N.E.2d 577 (N.Y. 2010) (holding that the application of bomb blast film to the lobby windows qualified as a significant alteration for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) because it significantly altered the configuration or composition of the structure by changing the way the lobby windows reacted to, inter alia , the elements, which distinguished the work from the activity of merely affixing an advertisement on a billboard, "a more frequent change that has less structural effect."); Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr. , 165 A.D.3d 117, 124, 83 N.Y.S.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018), lv. dismissed , 33 N.Y.3d 969, 100 N.Y.S.3d 213, 123 N.E.3d 872 (N.Y. 2019) (recognizing that work that affects a structure's "structural integrity" would qualify as an alteration for Labor Law purposes). Accordingly, defendant has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the Construction Exclusion applies to Flores's work at the Premises; and the Crescent Beach parties have not satisfied their burden of either raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding the applicability of the Construction Exclusion, or of demonstrating that the exception to the Construction Exclusion for "routine maintenance activities" applies.

The court properly dismissed plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim because plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity at the time of the accident. Plaintiff's work on a pest control project, which entailed attaching pigeon netting to anchors drilled into the fac¸ade of the building and setting up spikes on the building's ledges and windowsills, did not effect a "significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure" so as to constitute an "alteration" under the statute ( Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237 [1998] ; see alsoMananghaya v. Bronx–Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 165 A.D.3d 117, 124–126, 83 N.Y.S.3d 444 [1st Dept. 2018], lv dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 969, 100 N.Y.S.3d 213, 123 N.E.3d 872 [2019] ). Plaintiff's reaffixing of some of the anchors to reattach dislodged netting at the moment of injury, even if isolable from the larger project (seePrats v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 N.Y.2d 878, 881–882, 768 N.Y.S.2d 178, 800 N.E.2d 351 [2003] ), did not constitute covered "repair" work, as he was not repairing a part of a building or structure (see Labor Law § 240[1] ; Manente v. Ropost, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 681, 524 N.Y.S.2d 96 [2d Dept. 1988] ).

Furthermore, plaintiff has, at a minimum, raised an issue of fact as to whether he was engaged in the alteration of a structure at the time of his injury. For work to qualify as "altering" within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), it must not be "simple, routine" ( Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237 [1998] ), or cosmetic or decorative ( Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 747, 800 N.Y.S.2d 866, 834 N.E.2d 776 [2005] ), and it must effect "a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure" ( Joblon, 91 N.Y.2d at 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237 ). "[A] change in structural integrity is not necessarily required to obtain Labor Law § 240(1) coverage" ( Mananghaya v. Bronx–Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 165 A.D.3d 117, 124, 83 N.Y.S.3d 444 [1st Dept. 2018], lv dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 969, 100 N.Y.S.3d 213, 123 N.E.3d 872 [2019] ), and work as simple as chiseling a small hole into the wall to run wires between rooms to install an electric wall clock has been found to be "significant" ( Joblon, 91 N.Y.2d at 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237 ). Work "that affects a crucial building system," including the air conditioning system, can constitute "altering" ( Mananghaya, 165 A.D.3d at 124, 83 N.Y.S.3d 444 ).