Summary
holding that allegations of specific statutory violations, together with the complaint, were sufficient to state a cognizable cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e and did not require that actual violations be issued
Summary of this case from Touri v. ZhaguiOpinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately.
While driving past the construction site of a residential project, the plaintiff Ignacious Antico, a New York City police officer, observed a man entering the rear of the complex. Antico went down the street and was approached by a watchman who informed him that he had just been bombarded by fireworks. Antico then pursued the suspect into the construction site, tripped over construction debris, and fell into a trench, sustaining injuries. The appellants, as owners and occupiers of the premises, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that any common-law cause of action was barred by the the rule in Santangelo v State of New York ( 71 N.Y.2d 393). We find that the appellants' motions were properly denied. On a motion addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint, the inquiry is whether the complaint, considered as a whole and construing the allegations in favor of the plaintiff, states "in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law" (Dulberg v Mock, 1 N.Y.2d 54, 56; World Wide Adj. Bur. v Gordon Co., 111 A.D.2d 98). The bill of particulars can be read in connection with the complaint on a motion to dismiss (see, Nader v General Motors Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 560, 565). Here, we find that the complaint, together with the allegations of specific statutory violations in the bill of particulars, states a cognizable cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Santangelo v State of New York, 193 A.D.2d 25). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.