Shuber v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shuber v. City of New York

301 A.D.2d 365, 753 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 365 (Shuber v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shuber v. City of New York, 301 A.D.2d 365, 753 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered November 2, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while working as a police officer, was injured at the scene of an automobile accident and, in this action, seeks to impose liability for his harm upon the municipal defendants on a negligence theory and pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, alleging that they mismanaged the accident scene and, in so doing, violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e). The action against the municipal defendants was, however, properly dismissed since the choice of means to safeguard those responding to the accident scene constituted the sort of discretionary exercise for which the municipal defendants cannot be held liable (see Smullen v City of New York, 214 AD2d 508, lv denied 86 NY2d 705). No triable issue exists as to whether the municipal defendants violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) by recklessly operating an emergency vehicle, and thus the necessary predicate violation for a General Municipal Law § 205-e claim has not been furnished.

With the dismissal of plaintiffs’ direct causes of action, the derivative claim necessarily must also fail (see Shay v Jerkins, 263 AD2d 475). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered November 2, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while working as a police officer, was injured at the scene of an automobile accident and, in this action, seeks to impose liability for his harm upon the municipal defendants on a negligence theory and pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, alleging that they mismanaged the accident scene and, in so doing, violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e). The action against the municipal defendants was, however, properly dismissed since the choice of means to safeguard those responding to the accident scene constituted the sort of discretionary exercise for which the municipal defendants cannot be held liable (see Smullen v City of New York, 214 AD2d 508, lv denied 86 NY2d 705). No triable issue exists as to whether the municipal defendants violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) by recklessly operating an emergency vehicle, and thus the necessary predicate violation for a General Municipal Law § 205-e claim has not been furnished.

With the dismissal of plaintiffs’ direct causes of action, the derivative claim necessarily must also fail (see Shay v Jerkins, 263 AD2d 475). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 365, 753 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuber-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack