Argued May 29, 2008; decided June 25, 2008

Morales v D & A Food Serv., 41 AD3d 352, reversed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Irom, Wittels, Freund, Berne & Serra, P.C., Bronx (Richard W. Berne of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of John P. Humphreys, New York City (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for respondent.

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant Santomero's motion for summary judgment denied, plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant Santomero granted and [*2]the certified question answered in the negative.

Contrary to defendant's argument, plaintiff's work constituted an alteration within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]). In light of our{**10 NY3d at 913} recent decision in Sanatass v Consolidated Inv. Co., Inc. (10 NY3d 333 [2008]), defendant's contention that he lacks a sufficient nexus with plaintiff to support liability under section 240 (1) is without merit. Since plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his section 240 (1) claim and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on liability.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Judge Ciparick taking no part.

Order reversed, with costs, defendant Santomero's motion for summary judgment denied, plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant Santomero granted and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.