Lawrence v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawrence v. City of New York

240 A.D.2d 711, 659 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7064

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 30, 1997·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), dated March 3, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed. The pleadings failed to set forth the particular Vehicle and Traffic Law provisions allegedly violated by the partner of the plaintiff police officer with respect to the operation of the radio motor patrol vehicle (see, Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423, 441; Gibbons v Ostrow, 234 AD2d 415; MacKay v Misrok, 215 AD2d 734, 735; Hoey v Kuchler, 208 AD2d 805). As for the Patrol Guide procedures allegedly violated, these are general guidelines for the operation of radio motor patrol vehicles that neither impose a clear legal duty nor constitute a well-developed body of law and regulations with positive commands mandating the performance or nonperformance of specific acts and therefore cannot serve as the predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Desmond v City of New York, 88 NY2d 455, 464). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), dated March 3, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed. The pleadings failed to set forth the particular Vehicle and Traffic Law provisions allegedly violated by the partner of the plaintiff police officer with respect to the operation of the radio motor patrol vehicle (see, Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423, 441; Gibbons v Ostrow, 234 AD2d 415; MacKay v Misrok, 215 AD2d 734, 735; Hoey v Kuchler, 208 AD2d 805). As for the Patrol Guide procedures allegedly violated, these are general guidelines for the operation of radio motor patrol vehicles that neither impose a clear legal duty nor constitute a well-developed body of law and regulations with positive commands mandating the performance or nonperformance of specific acts and therefore cannot serve as the predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Desmond v City of New York, 88 NY2d 455, 464). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Lawrence v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 711, 659 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

240 A.D.2d 711 (Lawrence v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related