In Fabrizi v. 1095 Ave. of the Ams., LLC, 22 NY3d 658 [2014] the plaintiff, an electrician, was injured when he was struck by a piece of falling conduit pipe, which was left dangling by a compression coupling connecting it to a similar conduit. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was "relocating a pencil box" (id. at 661). When he removed the pencil box, he left "the top conduit dangling by the compression coupling near the ceiling" (id.). About 15 minutes later, while drilling, "the top conduit fell, striking plaintiff on the hand" (id.). The Court in Fabrizi held that the defendants were entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 240 (1) claim against them, because, contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, the inadequate compression coupling, which allegedly failed to prevent the conduit from falling, was not a safety device '"constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection' from the falling conduit" (id. at 663). In making its determination, the Court noted that the compression coupling's "only function was to keep the conduit together as part of the conduit/pencil box assembly . . . It cannot be said that the coupling was meant to function as a safety device in the same manner as those devices enumerated in section 240 (1). It follows that defendants' failure to use a set screw coupling is not a violation of section 240 (1)'s proper protection directive. A set screw coupling, utilized in the manner proposed by plaintiff, is not a safety device within the meaning of the statute. Plaintiff concedes that compression and set screw couplings are 'basic couplings' that serve identical purposes, namely, to function as support for the conduit/pencil box assembly, not to provide worker protection" (id.). In Fabrizi v. 1095 Ave. of the Ams., L.L.C., 22 NY3d 658 [2014] the Court of Appeals held that a building owner and a general contractor were entitled to summary dismissal of a plaintiff's Labor Law 240 [1] claim because a compression coupling, which plaintiff claimed was inadequate and caused a conduit to fall on his hand, was not a safety device "constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" from the falling conduit (22 NY3d 658, 985 N.Y.S.2d 416, 8 N.E.3d 791). In so holding, the Court of Appeals found that the compression coupling's only function was to keep the conduit together as part of the conduit/pencil box assembly, that the coupling had been installed a week before the incident and that it was serving its intended purpose until a change order was issued and the plaintiff dismantled the conduit/pencil box assembly (id. at 663). The Court held that the plaintiffs argument that the compression coupling was an inadequate safety device extended the reach of Labor Law 240 beyond its intended scope to any component that may lend support to a structure (id.).