granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240 claim, where plaintiff's use of a bucket to ascend a rooftop, and a leap to descend, was not a "normal and logical response," as a ladder was available

denying recovery where worker failed to use a ladder that was "readily" available at work site although some distance away

affirming summary judgment where plaintiff's use of inverted bucket to gain access to roof rather than a readily available ladder was the sole cause of injury

In Montgomery, for example, there was no indication that the plaintiff was instructed not to climb on an inverted bucket (4 N.Y.3d at 806, 795 N.Y.S.2d 490, 828 N.E.2d 592).

In Montgomery, we held that a worker who injured himself when he jumped from an elevator motor room to a roof, rather than use a "readily available" ladder, was not entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1).

In Montgomery v. Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff and another worker were assigned a task to be performed in an elevator "motor room," which was located four feet above the roof level of a building.

In Montgomery, the plaintiffs section 240 (1) claim was dismissed because he chose to jump four feet from the roof of an elevator room to the next level, despite the availability of ladders on the job site.

In Montgomery, the plaintiff and his supervisor were assigned to do work in an elevator motor room, which was located four feet above the roof level of the building in which they were working.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff chose not to get one of the ladders that were available elsewhere at the job site, and instead stood on an inverted bucket to climb up to a motor room elevated above the building's roof; he subsequently injured himself when he jumped down to the roof (id. at 806).

In Montgomery, for example, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the statutory claim even though "[t]here was no ladder in the immediate vicinity" of the rooftop where the plaintiff was doing his job (4 NY3d at 806).

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805 [2005]), plaintiff was injured when he ascended to and then descended from a roof using an upside-down bucket, although he knew there were ladders available for such purpose on the work site.

In Montgomery v Fed. Express Corp., 4 NY3d 805, 795 NYS2d 490 (1st Dept 2005), rather than retrieve a ladder, the plaintiff's behavior was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries where he used an inverted bucket to ascend to a motor room rather than a ladder.

In Montgomery v. Fed. Express Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 805, 795 N.Y.S.2d 490, 828 N.E.2d 592 (1st Dept 2005), rather than retrieve a ladder, the plaintiff's behavior was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries where he used an inverted bucket to ascend to a motor room rather than a ladder.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805, 806 [2005]), the plaintiff was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries when he used a bucket instead of a ladder to gain access to a motor room.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805 [2005]), the plaintiff and another worker were assigned a task to be performed in an elevator "motor room," which was located four feet above the roof level of a building.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff was found to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries where he used a bucket instead of a ladder to gain access to a motor room.

In Montgomery v Federal Express Corp. (4 NY3d 805), the plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was assigned to do work in an elevator "motor room."

In Montgomery, the Court found that the necessary safety devices were "readily available" and "at the job site" (Montgomery, 4 NY3d at 806).

In Montgomery v Federal Express, 4 NY3d 805, 795 NYS2d 490 (2005), the plaintiff used a bucket, turning it upside down to stand on when ladders were available. When he jumped down from the bucket, he injured himself.