New York Court of Appeals, 2017

Valente v. Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 5, 2017 · Difiore, Fahey, Feinman, Garcia, Rivera, Stein, Wilson

29 N.Y.3d 1104; 82 N.E.3d 448

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Cuevas v. Baruti Constr. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Delisle v. FBBT/US Props., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Perez v. 1334 York, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Nusbaum v. 1455 Wash. Ave. LLC (New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County 2025)
Nusbaum v. 1455 Wash. Ave. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Nicotra v. Giunta's Meat Farms, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Liu v. Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Guaman v. New York City Hous. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Stanger v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Cioffi v. Target Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Valle v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Valle v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Luna v. 4300 Crescent, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Bennett v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Rapalo v. MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Cardona v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) denied. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the fall of Frank Valente (plaintiff) was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection. We further conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of his accident” (Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 40 [2004]). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must (see generally Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]), we conclude that plaintiff’s foreman arguably provided conflicting accounts of whether plaintiff had “adequate safety devices available,” whether “he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them,” whether “he chose for no good reason not to do so,” and whether “had he not made that choice he would not have been injured” (Cahill, 4 NY3d at 40).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Feinman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judg*1106ment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) denied, and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.