Opinion
April 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, and upon reargument, the original determination in the order entered September 4, 1996, granting the motions of the defendants Ward Associates, P.C., and Brooks Rivellini, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is adhered to; and it is further, Ordered that the respondents-appellants and the respondent, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.
The court properly concluded that the plaintiffs' claims against the City of New Rochelle should be dismissed because the receipt of benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c was the injured plaintiff's exclusive remedy ( see, Damiani v. City of Buffalo, 198 A.D.2d 814, 815; O'Dette v. Parton, 190 A.D.2d 1074, 1075).
The Supreme Court did not set forth its reasoning for reinstating the action against the defendants Ward Associates, P.C., and Brooks Rivellini, Inc. While the intervening change in General Obligations Law § 11-106 (L 1996, ch 703, § 5) eliminated the firefighter's rule as a bar to a common-law negligence action against these defendants, there was no admissible evidence offered by the plaintiffs that would create a triable issue of fact as to whether either of those defendants was at fault for the happening of Officer O'Hare's accident, and therefore, the complaint must be dismissed insofar as asserted against them ( Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.