Plaintiff was injured when an 80-pound stone ornament fell from the fifth floor of a building under demolition and struck him at ground level. At the time, of the accident, plaintiff, who had been hired to be on the location where the accident occurred, was performing, work incident to the demolition. It is conceded that protective devices required by Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) were not employed at the demolition site. We reject defendant's contention that plaintiff's injury was the result of routine construction site perils and accordingly outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1). The falling of a heavy object from a height of five stories upon a worker employed at a demolition site is precisely the sort of extraordinary elevation-related event that Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) was intended to address ( cf., Sutfin v. Ithaca Coll., 240 A.D.2d 989, 990). Plaintiffs established a prima facie case of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1), and defendant did not in response present evidence sufficient to require a trial of the liability issue ( see, Burns v. City of Beacon, 257 A.D.2d 586; Kijak v. 330 Madison Ave. Corp., 251 A.D.2d 152).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Wallach, JJ.