Opinion
June 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In an action based on General Municipal Law § 205-e, the complaint must specify or identify the statutes with which the defendant allegedly failed to comply, describe the manner in which the plaintiff's injuries occurred, and set forth the facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the plaintiff ( see, Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, 441, citing Brophy v. Generoso, 137 A.D.2d 478, 479; Gibbons v. Ostrow, 234 A.D.2d 415; MacKay v. Misrok, 215 A.D.2d 734, 735; Hoey v. Kuchler, 208 A.D.2d 805). Here, the plaintiff's failure to identify a statute, ordinance, rule, order, or requirement that imposes an affirmative duty of repair upon the City is fatal ( see, St. Jacques v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 920).
Bracken, J.P., Miller, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.