Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
With one exception that is not applicable here, Labor Law § 240 (1) protects all laborers employed in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure, including self-employed independent contractors, even if the owner of the building or structure exercises no supervision, direction, or control over their work (Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555; Haimes v New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132; DeMattia v Van Westerhaut Mola Social Sport Club, 204 A.D.2d 594; Torillo v Kiperman, 183 A.D.2d 821; Crawford v Leimzider, 100 A.D.2d 568).
The injured plaintiff established a prima facie case pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) by showing that he fell when the unsecured ladder upon which he was descending slipped from underneath him (see, Bryan v City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448; Whalen v Sciame Constr. Co., 198 A.D.2d 501; Dennis v Beltrone Constr. Co., 195 A.D.2d 688; Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 A.D.2d 460; Fernandez v MHP Land Assocs., 188 A.D.2d 417). The defendant failed to show that the injured plaintiff's injuries were caused by anything but the unsecured ladder (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, supra). Furthermore, the recalcitrant worker defense is inapplicable to this case because the injured plaintiff's failure to have someone secure the ladder is not the equivalent of the refusal to use an available safety device (see, Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 918; Madigan v United Parcel Serv., 193 A.D.2d 1102; cf., Cannata v One Estate, 127 A.D.2d 811). Joy, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.