| Clarke v Drayton |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03017 [83 AD3d 762] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Brian Clarke, Respondent, v Randolph Drayton,Appellant. |
—[*1] Duffy & Duffy, Uniondale, N.Y. (Brian C. Lockhart of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), dated July 9, 2010, which denied hismotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To establish a defendant's liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a, a plaintifffirefighter must "identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply,describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and set forth those facts from which itmay be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to thefirefighter" (Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423, 441 [1995]). Theplaintiff "is not required to show the same degree of proximate cause as is required in acommon-law negligence action" (Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003][internal quotation marks omitted]). Rather, "a plaintiff need only establish a practical orreasonable connection between the statutory or regulatory violation and the claimed injury"(id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp.Commn., 85 NY2d at 441).
Here, the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw. The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his motion for summary judgmentrevealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant violated theAdministrative Code of the City of New York §§ 27-127 and 27-128, and whetherthere was a practical or reasonable connection between those alleged violations and the plaintiff'sinjuries (see Terranova v New York CityTr. Auth., 49 AD3d 10, 17 [2007]; Doherty v Sparacio, 35 AD3d 530, 531 [2006]; Foiles v V.L.J. Constr. Corp., 17 AD3d297 [2005]; cf. Kenavan v City of New York, 267 AD2d 353 [1999]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.