A falling worker and an engaged safety harness do not automatically equal liability. In Neto v Buddies Bro, LLC (2026), the Appellate Division reversed an order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), and sent the question to a jury. 

The plaintiff, a carpenter stripping a second-floor ceiling, was climbing down a cement column on scissor clamps when he slipped. His personal fall arrest system engaged and kept him off the ground, but he struck the exterior wall and lost consciousness. He moved for summary judgment, arguing that no scaffold or ladder usable on the outside of the building had been provided. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. 

The Second Department reversed. The plaintiff had made his prima facie case. But the owner and general contractor came forward with evidence that a six-foot ladder had in fact been provided, that the plaintiff may have known of it, and that he chose to climb down the scissor clamps near the building's edge instead. That showing raised a triable issue of fact whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injury, which is a complete defense to a § 240(1) claim, even though ordinary comparative negligence is not. 

The decision does not break new ground. It applies settled principles, including the sole proximate cause framework from Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. Its value is practical. A few points for owners, contractors, and carriers: A plaintiff's prima facie § 240(1) showing is not the end of the motion. The defense can still defeat a motion for summary judgment with the right opposition record. 

The opposition turns on device availability and worker choice. Was an adequate device present? Did the worker know about it? Did the worker decide not to use it without a good reason? Was that decision the sole cause of the injury? 

Build that record early. Equipment documentation, site safety logs, supervisor testimony, and the plaintiff's own admissions are what create the fact question. A denied liability motion preserves leverage. Keeping § 240(1) contested rather than decided changes the case's settlement posture. 

Do not treat an elevation-related fall as an automatic § 240(1) loss. Where an adequate safety device was provided, and the worker chose not to use it, there may be a jury question on sole proximate cause, and that question is worth preserving from the first opposition papers through trial.