Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a "liftgate" attached to the back of a truck owned by his employer malfunctioned. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant improperly performed a particular repair to the liftgate before the accident and that he was injured as a result thereof. The repair was performed pursuant to a contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs employer,
The defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing that it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff ( see Stiver v Good Fair Carting Moving, Inc., 9 NY3d 253, 257; Church v Callanan Indus., 99 NY2d 104, 111; Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant, in performing the repair, failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its contractual duties and launched a force or instrument of harm ( see Bienaime v Reyer, 41 AD3d 400, 403; Ocampo v Abetta Boiler Welding Serv., Inc., 33 AD3d 332; Davilmar v City of New York, 7 AD3d 559, 560-561). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.