Plaintiff's evidence that she fell after becoming entangled in defendant's dog's retractable leash when the dog playfully ran around her legs is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that defendant was negligent in failing to control her dog ( see Colarusso v. Dunne, 286 A.D.2d 37; Goldberg v. LoRusso, 288 A.D.2d 257; see also Schwartz v. Erpf Estate, 255 A.D.2d 35, 38, appeal dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 796). Defendant's evidence that plaintiff fell on ice simply raises an issue of fact as to causation, and her evidence that plaintiff called the dog over, as she often did upon seeing him, simply raises an issue of fact as to comparative negligence. An issue of fact as to causation is also raised by plaintiff's evidence that the accident occurred in a public park and that the length of the leash exceeded six feet in violation of 56 RCNY 1-04(i) ( cf. McCullough v. Maurer, 268 A.D.2d 569).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.