From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brasca v. Jessup

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1999
258 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the respective motions are granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The defendant Incorporated Village of Malverne (hereinafter the Village), set up a temporary trailer, adjacent to its police headquarters, to be used by the Village Police Department while the headquarters were undergoing renovations. The defendant Paul Jessup d/b/a Conservation Plumbing (hereinafter Jessup) installed a pipe which was used as a temporary water and sewer connection to the trailer. The plaintiff John Brasca, a police officer for the Village, while reporting back to the temporary trailer after his tour, walked over a portion of this pipe, which he had done on many prior occasions, tripped, fell, and sustained injuries. The Supreme Court denied the respective motions of the Village and Jessup for summary judgment. We reverse.

In an action under General Municipal Law § 205-a Gen. Mun., it is not necessary to demonstrate the same degree of proximate cause as in a common-law negligence action ( see, Jantzen v. Edelman of N.Y., 221 A.D.2d 594, 595). Rather, liability is imposed "`in any case where there is any practical or reasonable connection between a [statutory or code] violation and the injury or death of a [police officer]'" ( Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, 441, quoting McGee v. Adams Paper Twine Co., 26 A.D.2d 186, 195, affd 20 N.Y.2d 921; see also, Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 135, 140). We find that the various statutory and code violations on which the plaintiffs rely do not meet this standard.

Moreover, although the section of the pipe on which the injured plaintiff tripped was not covered by a barricade, the pipe was open and obvious and could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care ( see, Garcia v. New York City Hous. Auth., 234 A.D.2d 102).

Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brasca v. Jessup

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1999
258 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Brasca v. Jessup

Case Details

Full title:JOHN BRASCA et al., Respondents, v. PAUL JESSUP, Doing Business as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 8, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 633

Citing Cases

Williams v. City of New York

Since a statutory violation has been demonstrated, the only remaining question is whether there is "a…

Moore v. Eyzenberg

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Under General Municipal Law § 205-a, liability is imposed in…