Here, the pipe which fell was not in the process of being hoisted or secured, and did not require securing for the purpose of being affixed to the ceiling. Accordingly, the injured Plaintiff's accident did not result from the special hazards associated with gravity-related accidents covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), and does not fall within the scope of that statute ( see Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d at 268; Marin v AP-Amsterdam 1661 Park LLC, 60 AD3d 824, 825; Atkinson v State of New York, 20 AD3d 739, 740; Sierzputowski v City of New York, 14 AD3d 606, 607; Sparkes v Berger, 11 AD3d 601, 602; Fegundes v New York Tel. Co., 285 AD2d 526, 527). Accordingly, the injured Plaintiff's accident does not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1).
Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden here, in that the testimony of plaintiff and Ford, his coworker, demonstrates that the area where plaintiff was working was an area that was not one that was normally exposed to falling objects for purposes of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) (Crichigno v Pacific Park 550 Vanderbilt, LLC, 186 AD3d 664, 665 [2d Dept 2020]; Moncayo v Curtis Partition Corp., 106 AD3d 963, 965 [2d Dept 2013]). With respect to 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (b) (3), the record may show the existence of issues of fact as to whether the hazard that allegedly caused the accident arose from the actual performance of the work as opposed to structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition (see Mendez v Vardaris Tech, Inc., 173 AD3d 1004, 1005-1006 [2d Dept 2019]; Sierzputowski v City of New York, 14 AD3d 606, 607 [2d Dept 2005]; cf. Vega v Renaissance 632 Broadway, LLC, 103 AD3d 883, 885 [2d Dept 2013]). Nevertheless, as nothing in the language of section 23-3.3 (b) (3) suggests that a securing device under that section would be required if there was no foreseeable need for such securing.