Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Scott SHUBERT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Ramona SANTOS, et al., Defendants.
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 A.D.2d 508, 625 N.Y.S.2d 545, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 705, 632 N.Y.S.2d 498, 656 N.E.2d 597). 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 A.D.2d 475, 692 N.Y.S.2d 730).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 07, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)