SOOMAROO v. MAINCO ELEVATOR ELECTRICAL CORPORATION (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 27, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 A plaintiff's actions which are extraordinary and unforeseeable will be deemed a superseding cause which severs the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injuries (see Kriz v. Schum, 75 N.Y.2d 25, 36, 550 N.Y.S.2d 584, 549 N.E.2d 1155;  Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666).   Whether a plaintiff's act is a superseding cause or whether it is a normal consequence of the situation created by the defendant are generally questions for the trier of fact to determine (see Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., supra ).

 Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's actions were unforeseeable or of such a character as to sever the causal connection between the defendant's alleged negligence and the plaintiff's injury (see Humbach v. Goldstein, 255 A.D.2d 420, 421, 686 N.Y.S.2d 54;  see also Devoy v. 1110/1130 Stadium Owners Corp., 270 A.D.2d 131, 704 N.Y.S.2d 572).   Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs' actions were a superseding cause absolving the defendant from liability (see Kriz v. Schum, supra;  Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., supra at 316, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666;  Humbach v. Goldstein, supra;  Bowen v. New York City Hous. Auth., 210 A.D.2d 278, 620 N.Y.S.2d 290;  Lopez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 159 A.D.2d 236, 237, 552 N.Y.S.2d 216).   Since the defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of establishing, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;  Bowen v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra;  see also Gilbert v. Kingsbrook Jewish Ctr., 4 A.D.3d 392, 771 N.Y.S.2d 399).