OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim granted, and the certified question answered in the negative.
No Labor Law § 240 (1) liability exists where an injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first place ( see Nieves v Five Boro A.C. Refrig. Corp., 93 NY2d 914; Melber v 6333 Main St., 91 NY2d 759, 763-764). Here, the presence of two unconnected pipes protruding from a wall was not "the risk which brought about the need for the [ladder] in the first instance" ( Nieves, 93 NY2d at 916 [citations omitted]), but was one of "the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site" ( id.) to which the "extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) [do not] extend" ( id. at 915).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.