Carlos v. W.H.P. 19 L. L. C.

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 30, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability upon their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion granted.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should have been granted inasmuch as comparative negligence is not a defense to such claim (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452 , 460-461). The improper placement of the ladder on an uneven sidewalk and the failure to secure it were violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and, therefore, plaintiff laborer’s conduct in continuing to ascend a ladder he knew had been only partially opened was not, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his accident (cf., Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 91 NY2d 958 ).

We also reject defendant’s argument that there is a factual issue as to whether plaintiff was engaged in work falling within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1). The argument is not properly before us, having been advanced for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is without merit. Plaintiffs removal of a sign was an integral part of a larger ongoing project to construct a high-rise apartment building and, as such, was covered under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290 ). Concur — Nardelli, J. R, Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.