From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 25, 2016
143 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

10-25-2016

Frank VALENTE, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. LEND LEASE (U.S.) CONSTRUCTION LMB, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Lend Lease Project Management & Construction, et al., Defendants.

Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondents.


Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellants.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondents.

ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, FEINMAN, KAHN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 15, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs established prima facie that plaintiff Frank Valente's slip and fall on grease on planks that he was using as a makeshift ramp to descend five feet from the top of a building to a scaffold was “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” and therefore is covered under Labor Law § 240(1) (Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599, 603, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 922 N.E.2d 865 [2009] ; see also Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1, 8–9, 917 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept.2011] ).

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident because he chose to use the planks instead of using a ramp that he knew was available or constructing a proper ramp from material that was readily available on site. Affidavits and other testimonial evidence demonstrate that the ramp that was available was not long enough to reach the scaffold and that plaintiff did not have time to build a ramp before meeting the crane that was approaching to assist in dismantling the scaffold (see Miranda v. NYC Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 122 A.D.3d 445, 996 N.Y.S.2d 256 [1st Dept.2014] ).


Summaries of

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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 25, 2016
143 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

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

Case Details

Full title:Frank VALENTE, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. LEND LEASE (U.S.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 25, 2016

Citations

143 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
39 N.Y.S.3d 464
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6987

Citing Cases

Williams v. 1825 Park A Venue Prop. Inv'rs III

Here, Dowers' affidavit and deposition testimony that he had directed plaintiff to secure the shaft with the…

Hurtado v. 1501 Pitkin Owners, LLC

In addition, Bueno's testimony that there were steps that plaintiff could have used to climb down from the…