In Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City. Inc. (1 N.Y.3d 280 [2003]) plaintiff operated his own contracting company, and was working alone on a renovation job. Defendant Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City (NHS), acting on the homeowner's application, dispatched a rehabilitation specialist to the premises to assess the scope of the work and the amount of the loan. NHS prepared a work estimate and gave the homeowner a list of contractors, from which she chose plaintiff. At the job site, plaintiff set up an extension ladder, which he owned and used frequently. He acknowledged that the ladder was steady, had rubber shoes and was in proper working condition. When plaintiff began scraping rust from a window, the upper portion of the ladder retracted, causing plaintiff to fall. The Court of Appeals found that the accident was the result of plaintiff's own failure to engage extension clips, the only device that kept the ladder in the extended position. Thus, plaintiff was fully responsible for his own injures, and the sole proximate cause of his accident. In Blake the Court of Appeals dismissed the Labor Law 240[1] claim based on the sole proximate cause argument, noting that the extension ladder that plaintiff fell from was in proper working condition and not broken or defective. Although the plaintiff in Blake used the ladder with the extension clips unlocked causing the extension ladder to retract, the Court found that the "accident was not caused by the absence of (or defect in) the way the safety device was placed" (Blake, 1 NY3d at 288). The Blake court concluded that plaintiff's failure to lock the clips constituted intentional misuse, thus warranting dismissal of the claim against the property owner. In Blake v. Neighborhood Houses, 1 NY3d 280 [2003] the jury found, (and the Court of Appeals specifically noted) that the plaintiff was provided with "proper protection" and that plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. "Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to recover in the face of a record that shows no violation and reveals that he was entirely responsible for his own injuries. There is no basis for this argument. Even when a worker is not "recalcitrant," we have held that there can be no liability under section 240 (1) when there is no violation and the worker's actions (here, his negligence) are the "sole proximate cause" of the accident. Extending the statute to impose liability in such a case would be inconsistent with statutory goals since the accident was not caused by the absence of (or defect in) any safety device, or in the way the safety device was placed". (Blake at 290.) In Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, Inc. (1 N.Y.3d 280 [2003]) the plaintiff supplied his own extension ladder and was standing on the extension portion of the ladder when it telescoped and collapsed, resulting in the plaintiff's foot being trapped between rungs of the ladder. The ladder did not fall to the ground. The plaintiff, in his unsuccessful motion for summary judgment and at trial, did not put forward a theory as to why the ladder telescoped or connect that theory with a violation of section 240 (1) of the Labor Law. Blake simply asserted that the ladder collapsed, causing his injury. Indeed, Blake testified that the ladder was in good working order prior to and subsequent to his injury, that it had no defective condition, that he believed he fastened the hooks that supported the extension portion of the ladder on the base portion, that the ladder had appropriate feet and that in his opinion there was no need to secure the ladder to the building or to have someone hold the ladder. The ladder did not fall to the ground until after Blake sustained an injury to his foot, which had become trapped between rungs. There was no indication or demonstration in Blake of any required safety device which was not present, was not properly placed or secured, or which failed. There was only proof of a ladder which had adequate and appropriate safety devices. Blake stands for the proposition that a Labor Law 240 plaintiff is required to show a statutory violation which caused the injury complained of. The statute requires that proper and adequate safety equipment be provided and properly placed and operated. Blake also recognizes that the collapse of a safety device (a ladder, a scaffold) raises a presumption that the device was inadequate and that the statute was violated, but only a rebuttable presumption. In Blake the defendant was able to establish--through the plaintiff's own testimony--that there was nothing defective or inappropriate or inadequate about the safety device in question, its placement, or its operation. The defendant established, through Blake's own testimony, that there was no statutory violation. Blake, himself, rebutted the presumption, and offered no evidence, factual or expert, of a statutory violation. The Court further upheld the jury's findings: (1) that "the ladder was so constructed and operated as to give him (plaintiff) proper protection"; and (2) that "plaintiff was the sole cause of his injury". In refutation to plaintiff's arguments, the Blake court stated: "Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to recover in the face of a record that shows no violation and reveals that he was entirely responsible for his own injuries. There is no basis for this argument. Even when a worker is not "recalcitrant," we have held that there can be no liability under section 240 (1) when there is no violation and the worker's actions (here, his negligence) are the "sole proximate cause" of the accident. Extending the statute to impose liability in such a case would be inconsistent with statutory goals since the accident was not caused by the absence of (or defect in) any safety device, or in the way the safety device was placed". Blake at 290.