Newman v RCPI Landmark Props., LLC, 28 NY3d 1032 (2016)

2016 NY Slip Op 07703 [28 NY3d 1032]
November 17, 2016
Court of Appeals

[*1]

George Newman et al., Appellants,
v
RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Argued October 18, 2016; decided November 17, 2016

Newman v RCPI Landmark Props., LLC, 124 AD3d 551, reversed.

{**28 NY3d at 1033} 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 [*2]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{**28 NY3d at 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 part[ies]’ ” (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.