Plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on the motion inasmuch as his own submissions in support thereof raise triable issues of material fact whether plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident due to his failure "to use available, safe and appropriate equipment"—i.e., the scissor lift—at the time of the accident ( Fazekas v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. , 132 A.D.3d 1401, 1403, 18 N.Y.S.3d 251 [4th Dept. 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeRobinson v. East Med. Ctr., LP , 6 N.Y.3d 550, 554, 814 N.Y.S.2d 589, 847 N.E.2d 1162 [2006] ; see generallyZuckerman v. City of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ). Specifically, plaintiff submitted, inter alia, his deposition testimony wherein he acknowledged both that the scissor lift that was present on site was the proper means of lifting the sheetrock and that using a ladder to perform that task was unsafe (seeWard v. Corning Painted Post Area Sch. Dist. , 192 A.D.3d 1563, 1564, 145 N.Y.S.3d 700 [4th Dept. 2021] ; Banks v. LPCiminelli, Inc. , 125 A.D.3d 1334, 1334-1335, 4 N.Y.S.3d 416 [4th Dept. 2015] ). Additionally, plaintiff's submissions raise a question of fact whether plaintiff "chose for no good reason" to use the ladder instead of the scissor lift ( Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. , 4 N.Y.3d 35, 40, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 [2004] ; cf.Schutt v. Bookhagen , 186 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 130 N.Y.S.3d 153 [4th Dept. 2020], appeal dismissed 36 N.Y.3d 939, 135 N.Y.S.3d 670, 160 N.E.3d 328 [2020] ; see generallyRobinson , 6 N.Y.3d at 555, 814 N.Y.S.2d 589, 847 N.E.2d 1162 ).