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.
Rachel TEITELBAUM, etc., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 28, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants the City of New York and the New York City Police Department for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the City of New York and the New York City Police Department (hereinafter collectively the City) after the injured plaintiff was struck by a stolen vehicle being followed by the police. The accident occurred when an officer sounded his intermittent siren while he was stuck in traffic on a one-way street in a densely-populated area, and the driver of the stolen vehicle, who was approximately one half-block ahead, mounted the sidewalk.
The City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the police officer's conduct was not reckless. The officer's alleged violation of internal guidelines relating to pursuits failed to establish that his conduct was reckless (see Powell v. City of Mount Vernon, 228 A.D.2d 572, 644 N.Y.S.2d 766; cf. Allen v. Town of Amherst, 294 A.D.2d 828, 740 N.Y.S.2d 904). Additionally, the affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert, which was premised on the internal guidelines, was conclusory. Accordingly, the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact and the Supreme Court properly granted the City's motion for summary judgment.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 30, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)