Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
An owner of a one- or two-family dwelling is subject to liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) only if he or she directed or controlled the work being performed (see Garcia v Petrakis, 306 AD2d 315 [2003]; Tilton v Gould, 303 AD2d 491 [2003]; Duarte v East Hills Constr. Corp., 274 AD2d 493, 494 [2000]; Kolakowski v Feeney, 204 AD2d 693 [1994]). The phrase “direct or control” is construed strictly and refers to the situation where “the owner supervises the method and manner of the work” (Rimoldi v Schanzer, 147 AD2d 541, 545 [1989]; see Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp., 32 NY2d 405, 409 [1973]).
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendant homeowners established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Garcia v Petrakis, supra at 316; Duarte v East Hills Constr. Corp., supra; Stamboulis v Stefatos, 256 AD2d 328, 329 [1998]).
Similarly, the defendant homeowners were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action since they established that they neither controlled nor supervised the injured plaintiff’s work, or had actual or constructive notice of any defective condition (see Garcia v Petrakis, supra at 316; Duarte v East Hills Constr. Corp., supra at 495). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J.P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.