In Amo v. Little Rapids Corp. (301 AD2d 698 [3d Dept 2003]), plaintiff was standing on top of a rock or boulder jackhammering it in order to break it down and remove it from an area under excavation in a section of a basement floor in a factory. Plaintiff fell from the boulder, sustaining injuries. The defendants asserted that the jury's factual determination that plaintiff fell 15 to 16 inches rendered Labor Law 240 (1) inapplicable as a matter of law. The Third Department disagreed, writing: "The sufficiency of an elevation differential and fall from a height for purposes of Labor Law 240 (1) liability cannot, unfortunately, be reduced to a numerical bright-line test or automatic minimum/maximum quantification and, indeed, . . . the extent of the elevation differential may not, by itself, necessarily determine whether section 240 (1) applies. On one side of the spectrum, de minimis elevations involving falls at or very near ground level are insufficient. On the other end of the spectrum, otherwise qualifying falls of several feet have been determined to be sufficiently elevated so as to fit within the intended protective scope of Labor Law 240 (1). "This case, involving an otherwise qualifying elevation differential of 15 to 16 inches, represents a middle ground, of sorts, in reported Labor Law 240 (1) jurisprudence and we find support for Supreme Court's conclusion that, considering all of the circumstances of this accident, this height was sufficient to present the type of elevation-related hazard protected by this statute." (Amo, 301 AD2d at 701-702 .)