Cases where falling materials were found to be hazards under Labor Law section 240 (1): In D'Antonio v. Manhattan Contr. Corp., 93 AD3d 443, 444, 939 N.Y.S.2d 433 (1st Dept 2012), the plaintiff was injured while installing temporary lighting when a conduit pipe that housed wiring partially detached from the wall and swung downward; there were triable issues of fact as to whether the conduit pipe constituted a falling object within the meaning of the statute, and whether the injury was caused by the absence or inadequacy of a safety device. In Gonzalez v. TJM Constr. Corp., 87 AD3d 610, 928 N.Y.S.2d 344 (2d Dept 2011), there was a question of fact as whether a brick that fell from "out of nowhere," injuring the plaintiff, a mason working on an exterior renovation project, should have been secured for purposes of the work being performed, given that the plaintiff was standing inside next to a window that had been removed. In Kyu-To v. Triangle Equities, LLC, 84 AD3d 1058, 1059-1060, 923 N.Y.S.2d 628 (2d Dept 2011), a laborer on the first floor of a five-story building in which demolition had begun, was hit on the head from above and found covered with building debris; in reversing the trial court's grant of the defendants' motion for a judgment as a matter of law, the Court found the jury had a rational basis to find that the laborer was injured by materials being removed from the demolition site and, given the nature and purpose of the work being performed at the time of his injury, that this material presented a significant risk of injury and should have been secured.