The appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). In this regard the evidence submitted by the appellants showed “the absence of a causal nexus between the worker's injury and a lack or failure of a device prescribed by section 240(1)” ( Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 9, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551, 959 N.E.2d 488, citing Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d at 490–491, 634 N.Y.S.2d 35, 657 N.E.2d 1318;see Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d at 268, 727 N.Y.S.2d 37, 750 N.E.2d 1085;Novak v. Del Savio, 64 A.D.3d 636, 883 N.Y.S.2d 558;Marin v. AP–Amsterdam 1661 Park LLC, 60 A.D.3d 824, 825, 875 N.Y.S.2d 242;Atkinson v. State of New York, 20 A.D.3d 739, 740, 798 N.Y.S.2d 230;Sierzputowski v. City of New York, 14 A.D.3d 606, 607, 789 N.Y.S.2d 214;Sparkes v. Berger, 11 A.D.3d 601, 602, 783 N.Y.S.2d 390). In opposition to that branch of the appellants' motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Here, plaintiff has failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the specific hazard (i.e., the partial fall and the resulting swinging out of the light fixture which, in turn, struck plaintiff in the back) arose from the structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition, rather than from Eric's (i.e., plaintiff's coworker) actual performance of the demolition work itself (see Flores v Crescent Beach Club, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 560, 562 [2d Dept 2022]; Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp., 189 A.D.3d 1187, 1191 [2d Dept 2020]; Vega v Renaissance 632 Broadway, LLC, 103 A.D.3d 883, 885 [2d Dept 2013]; Campoverde v Bruckner Plaza Assoc., L.P., 50 A.D.3d 836, 837 [2d Dept 2008]; cf. Mendez v Vardaris Tech, Inc., 173 A.D.3d 1004, 1005-1006 [2d Dept 2019]; Sierzputowski v City of New York, 14 A.D.3d 606, 607 [2d Dept 2005]; Salinas v Barney Skanska Const. Co., 2 A.D.3d 619, 622-623 [2d Dept 2003]).