Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well established that summary judgment will be granted only if there are no triable issues of fact ( see, Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404). Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the key to summary judgment ( see, Krupp v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., 103 A.D.2d 252, 261). The court should refrain from making credibility determinations ( see, Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341), and the papers should be scrutinized carefully in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion ( see, Robinson v. Strong Mem. Hosp., 98 A.D.2d 976). Contrary to the plaintiff's arguments, the court properly determined that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether he was a "recalcitrant worker" for purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) ( see, Watso v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 228 A.D.2d 883; Hickey v. Perry Sons, 223 A.D.2d 799; Ortega v. Catamount Constr. Corp., 226 A.D.2d 154). Similarly, there are questions of fact as to the plaintiff's comparative negligence for purposes of Labor Law § 241 (6) ( see, Drago v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 372, 373).