Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, NY (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for appellants National Grid Energy Services, LLC, and others.

O'Hare Parnagian, LLP, New York, NY (Robert A. O'Hare, Jr., Nicholas I. Timko, and Andrew C. Levitt of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants National Grid Energy Services, LLC, National Grid Generation, LLC, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company appeal, and the defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, separately appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered June 20, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from by the defendants National Grid Energy Services, LLC, National Grid Generation, LLC, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company, denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The appeal by the defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, was deemed dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants National Grid Energy Services, LLC, National Grid Generation, LLC, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against, among others, the defendants National Grid Energy Services, LLC, National Grid Generation, LLC, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company (hereinafter collectively the defendants). After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In an order entered June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the defendants' motion. The defendants appeal.

A gas company has a duty to avoid injury to neighboring property owners and is liable only for injuries caused by its negligence in the installation or maintenance of its system (see De Witt Props. v City of New York, 44 NY2d 417, 423 [1978]; Deitrick v Long Is. Power Auth., 164 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2018]). Reasonable care is required in the handling and distribution of gas due to the dangerous and explosive character of gas and its tendency to escape. The duty is to use that degree of caution which is reasonably necessary to prevent the escape or explosion of gas from its pipes and equipment (see New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Glider Oil Co., Inc., 90 AD3d 1638, 1641 [2011]; PJI 2:185).

[*2] Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The evidence submitted in support of the defendants' motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they were negligent in the maintenance of their gas system that serviced the subject premises and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Moreover, this evidence failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants used reasonable care in their handling and distribution of natural gas to the premises leading up to an explosion (see Ramirez Gabriel v Johnston's L.P. Gas Serv., Inc., 143 AD3d 1228, 1231 [2016]; Scully v Brooklyn Union Gas, 35 AD3d 435, 436 [2006]).

Since the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Duffy, J.P., Wooten, Genovesi and Voutsinas, JJ., concur.