In Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co. (81 N.Y. 2d 494) the plaintiff was denied recovery although he injured his back while working in an awkward position on an unsafe scaffold. The Court of Appeals (at 501) held that plaintiff was not entitled to recovery under section 240 (1) because "however unsafe the ... scaffold may have been ... it cannot be said that the device did not serve the core objective of Labor Law 240 (1)--preventing plaintiff from falling." In other words, one essential element was missing in Ross, i.e., the force of gravity as a contributing cause of the injury.