Court Opinion

ID: 4099024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-17 14:10:14.442056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:01.449534
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
 

  Memorandum.
 

  The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied.
 

  This is an ordinary negligence case. Questions regarding proximate cause generally are for a trier of fact
  
   (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,
  
  51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980],
  
   rearg denied
  
  52 NY2d 784 [1980]). Defendants’ own submissions do not establish as a matter of law that their alleged negligence was
   
   *1034
   
  not a proximate cause of the accident
  
   (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,
  
  49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Viewed “ ‘in the light most favorable to [plaintiffs,] the non-moving parties]’ ”
  
   (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp.,
  
  18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012], quoting
  
   Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC,
  
  18 NY3d 335, 339 [2011]), those submissions leave open the possibility that some negligence on defendants’ part contributed to the injuries incurred by George Newman (plaintiff) when he descended from the loading dock in question, and that there is a causal link between that alleged negligence and plaintiff’s fall.
 

  Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.
 

  Order reversed, with costs, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied, in a memorandum.