Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) claim, there being no dispute that the scaffold on which he was working did not prevent him from falling — "the core objective of Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) — preventing (a worker] from falling" ( Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501) — and that his injuries were caused by the fall ( see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 561-562). It does not avail defendants to argue that plaintiff fell because of his own negligence in failing to activate a locking device for the scaffold's wheels ( supra). The motions for conditional indemnification were properly denied inasmuch as there are outstanding issues of fact.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.