Plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) cause of action against the owners was properly dismissed because the injury he sustained when a component of the air conditioner he was dismantling fell two to three inches onto his hand was not caused by an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute ( see, Rodriguez v. Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841; Schreiner v. Cremosa Cheese Corp., 202 A.D.2d 657), and the allegedly defective internal support beam that fell through the bottom of the unit, causing the component to fall, was not a "brace" within the meaning of the statute ( see, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 491; Amato v. State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 400, 401, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 805). However, plaintiffs' other causes of action against the owners should not have been dismissed where, although their notice of motion stated that it was for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint, the supporting papers, and indeed the motion court, addressed only the Labor Law § 240 Lab. (1) cause of action. Under such circumstances, it would be not only manifestly unfair to grant summary judgment against plaintiff for not responding to arguments not explicitly raised, but would also impermissibly shift the initial burden of proof (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 425, 430). Concerning the contractor, summary judgment was properly granted in its favor, where it submitted an affidavit from a vice president that its records indicated it did not perform any work at the accident site prior to or at the time of the accident, and plaintiff countered with mere expressions of hope that further disclosure might uncover information linking it to the accident ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.