Opinion
Argued December 16, 1999
February 10, 2000
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant toGeneral Municipal Law § 205-e , the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 4, 1994, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Worth, Longworth, Bamundo London, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John W. Burns of counsel), for appellants Frank Abbadessa, Michael Santanastaso, Michael Immit, Emanuel Colonna, Louis Passalacqua, and Brian Kahn.
Trager, Cronin Byczek, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Joseph L. Decolator and Raymond E. Kerno of counsel), for remaining appellants.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, SONDRA MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
To establish a prima facie case under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a plaintiff, in addition to demonstrating a violation of a relevant statute, ordinance, or regulation, must also establish a practical or reasonable connection between the violation and the injury or death of the police officer (see, Cotter v. Spear, 139 A.D.2d 555, 557 ; see also, Mullen v. Zoebe, 86 N.Y.2d 135, 140 ; Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, 441 ; Brunelle v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 347 [decided herewith]; McGee v. Adams Paper Twine Co., 26 A.D.2d 186, 195, affd 20 N.Y.2d 921 ; Daggett v. Keshner, 284 App. Div. 733 ). Here, even if the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations allegedly violated are part of a well-developed body of law containing particularized mandates or imposing a clear legal duty on the plaintiffs' employer (see,Gonzalez v. Iocovello, 93 N.Y.2d 539 ; Desmond v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 455 ; St. Jacques v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 920 ), the facts that have been pleaded are insufficient to make out a violation of the predicate regulations or to establish the requisite causal connection between the alleged violations and the injuries sustained (see, Sciangula v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 833 ; see also, Kenavan v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 353 [2d Dept., Dec. 20, 1999]).