Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted in its entirety plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The unrefuted evidence establishes that plaintiff fell from a ladder while engaged in statutorily protected work and that no safety devices were provided that might have prevented the accident. Because the lack of safety devices was demonstrated to have been a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, the court should have granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff (see, Walsh v. Baker, 172 A.D.2d 1038; see also, Dennis v. Beltrone Constr. Co., 195 A.D.2d 688; Fernandez v. MHP Land Assocs., 188 A.D.2d 417; Place v. Grand Union Co., 184 A.D.2d 817). Plaintiff's alleged drug intoxication would be admissible only as proof that such intoxication was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Tate v. Clancy-Cullen Stor. Co., 171 A.D.2d 292, 296-297). Where, however, as here, the lack of safety devices was demonstrated to have been a proximate cause of the accident, none of defendant's assertions concerning plaintiff's contributory negligence, including plaintiff's ingestion of prescription drugs on the afternoon of the accident, constitutes a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action (see, Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 460; Keane v. Sin Hang Lee, 188 A.D.2d 636; Witherel v. Balling Constr., 99 A.D.2d 646).