- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Valencia v. Sol Goldman Investments LLC
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03413
Background
Plaintiffs Roberto Valencia and Carlos Diez were injured in an elevator-related accident at a construction site. The defendants included the building owners (Sol Goldman Investments LLC and related entities), the general contractor (Gotham Construction Company, LLC), and elevator companies KONE, Inc. and CEMD Elevator Corp. KONE moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party complaint, and CEMD’s cross-claims against it. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied KONE’s motion in most respects, and KONE appealed. The case involved competing claims about which elevator company’s work may have caused or contributed to the accident, as well as third-party claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order to grant KONE summary judgment dismissing the third-party claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and otherwise affirmed the denial of KONE’s motion. The Court held that KONE failed to establish prima facie that its employees were not involved in work that may have caused or contributed to the accident, leaving triable issues of fact on the negligence claims. However, the Court found that the contractual indemnification and insurance procurement claims against KONE were without merit based on the terms of KONE’s contract and the circumstances of the accident.
Takeaways
In construction site elevator accident cases involving multiple elevator contractors, each contractor bears the burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that its own work did not cause or contribute to the accident. A contractor that cannot make this prima facie showing will not obtain dismissal of the negligence claims. However, contractual indemnification and insurance procurement claims must be analyzed separately based on the specific terms of each contractor’s agreement, and may be dismissed even when the underlying negligence claims survive.
Why It Matters
This decision highlights the complexity of apportioning liability in construction site accidents involving specialized contractors with overlapping work responsibilities. When multiple elevator companies perform work at the same site, the question of which company’s work caused the accident presents factual issues that generally cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Contractors should be aware that their summary judgment motions must affirmatively exclude their own involvement in the accident, not merely point to another contractor’s potential responsibility. The partial modification also demonstrates that contractual indemnification claims are distinct from negligence claims and may be resolved on different grounds.