Vin-Al Corp.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentJun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
228 A.D.2d 631646 N.Y.S.2d 26

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Olson v. City

    …Nothing in the acts undertaken in the performance of his firefighter duties placed the injured plaintiff at…

  • J. Mar Service Center, Inc. v. Rahaniotis

    …Equip. Corp., 228 A.D.2d 653; cf., Ameropan Realty Corp. v. Rangley Lakes Corp., 228 A.D.2d 631), "it was…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

June 24, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff Russell Boardman, a New York City firefighter, was injured while attempting to open a hole in the roof of a burning building. After swinging his axe several times he hit a steel beam that caused him to fracture his wrist. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the defendants violated General Municipal Law § 205-a.

The court properly granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs' personal injury suit was barred by the so-called "firefighter's rule" ( see, Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423; Cooper v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 584, 588-589; Santangelo v. State of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 393, 396; Kenavan v. City of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 558, 566; Cottone v City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 345). The plaintiffs rely on Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-4272, which requires that "[l]ighted matches, cigars, [or] cigarettes" must be deposited in a "metal or other non-combustible material provided for the reception thereof". However, a violation of that section of the Code does not trigger the statutory exception to the fireman's rule contained in General Municipal Law § 205-a. Even if the plaintiffs were able to establish that the defendants violated that section of the Code, such a violation does not create hazards additional to those that firefighters already face in their profession ( see, Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, supra; Kenavan v. City of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 558, supra). Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.