Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Steven LAWRENCE, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Decided: June 30, 1997

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and PIZZUTO, SANTUCCI and JOY, JJ. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., Lake Success (Joseph L. Decolator, David Wilde, and Denis J. Jean, of counsel), for appellants. Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Barry P. Schwartz and Linda H. Young, of counsel), for respondent.

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 N.Y.2d 423, 441, 626 N.Y.S.2d 23, 649 N.E.2d 1167;  Gibbons v. Ostrow, 234 A.D.2d 415, 651 N.Y.S.2d 168;  MacKay v. Misrok, 215 A.D.2d 734, 735, 627 N.Y.S.2d 430;  Hoey v. Kuchler, 208 A.D.2d 805, 619 N.Y.S.2d 50).   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 N.Y.2d 455, 464, 646 N.Y.S.2d 492, 669 N.E.2d 472).


Copied to clipboard