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 NY2d 25, 36; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). Whether a plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 AD2d 420, 421; see also Devoy v 1110/1130 Stadium Owners Corp., 270 AD2d 131). 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; Humbach v Goldstein, supra; Bowen v New York City Hous. Auth., 210 AD2d 278; Lopez v New York City Hous. Auth., 159 AD2d 236, 237). 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 NY2d 851; Bowen v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; see also Gilbert v Kingsbrook Jewish Ctr., 4 AD3d 392).