Plaintiff testified at deposition that as he fled a threatening gang of youths, he tripped over a protruding metal plate on the subway platform, causing him to fall close to the platform's edge, then almost immediately onto the tracks and ultimately through the tracks and onto the street below. We reject defendant's argument that such testimony establishes, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the allegedly hazardous metal plate but by the gang's actions and plaintiff's response thereto. Giving plaintiff's testimony the benefit of every favorable inference, a jury could find that he would not have tripped and fallen had it not been for the metal plate, and that he would not have rolled onto the tracks had he not tripped and fallen so close to the edge of the platform. Of course, there may be more than one proximate cause for an injury (CPLR article 14). Inconsistencies between plaintiff's deposition testimony and his section 50-h testimony eight years earlier, which suggested less immediacy between his trip and fall on the platform and his tumble onto the tracks, raise issues of credibility that should also be left for trial (see, Yaziciyan v. Blancato, 267 A.D.2d 152).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.