OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action granted. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

Plaintiff was injured in a fall while applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard that sat atop a building owned by defendant. Plaintiffs activities may have changed the outward appearance of the billboard, but did not change the billboard’s structure, and thus were more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification than to “altering” for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.