New York Law Review

Tag: Fellow Officer Negligence

  • Gonzalez v. City of New York, 96 N.Y.2d 167 (2001): Establishes that fellow officer negligence can be a predicate for liability under General Municipal Law § 205-e

    Gonzalez v. City of New York, 96 N.Y.2d 167 (2001)

    General Municipal Law § 205-e allows injured police officers to sue for injuries sustained as a result of another’s failure to comply with statutes, ordinances, rules, or requirements, including those caused by a fellow officer’s negligence, provided the violation involves a ‘clear legal duty’.

    Summary

    These consolidated appeals address whether the City of New York can be held liable to police officers under General Municipal Law § 205-e for injuries sustained due to the negligence of fellow officers or the City’s failure to maintain safe sidewalks. In Gonzalez, an officer sued after being injured in a collision caused by her partner’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e). In Cosgriff, an officer sued after tripping on a defective sidewalk, alleging violations of New York City Charter and Administrative Code provisions. The Court of Appeals held that § 205-e permits lawsuits based on fellow officer negligence and that the cited provisions can serve as predicates for liability.

    Facts

    In Gonzalez, Officer Maria Gonzalez was injured when the police vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with another vehicle after her partner drove through a red light while responding to a burglary call.

    In Cosgriff, Officer Sean Cosgriff tripped and fell on a defective sidewalk while pursuing individuals involved in drug sales. The City had prior notice of the sidewalk’s condition.

    Procedural History

    In Gonzalez, the jury awarded damages to Gonzalez. The Appellate Division modified the award on other grounds and affirmed. The City appealed.

    In Cosgriff, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified, reinstating the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim. The City appealed after a final judgment awarding damages to the Plaintiff.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether General Municipal Law § 205-e permits a lawsuit by an injured police officer against the City based on a fellow officer’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e)?

    2. Whether New York City Charter § 2903(b)(2) and § 2904, and Administrative Code § 7-201(c) and § 19-152 can sustain a claim under General Municipal Law § 205-e for injuries sustained due to a defective sidewalk?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because General Municipal Law § 205-e contains no categorical exemption for fellow officer conduct, and the legislative history indicates an intent to allow such suits.

    2. Yes, because City Charter § 2903(b)(2) and Administrative Code § 7-201(c) impose a clear legal duty on the City to maintain sidewalks, and they are part of a well-developed body of law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized that General Municipal Law § 205-e was intended to provide recourse for injured police officers. Despite multiple amendments, the Legislature never included a categorical exemption for fellow officer negligence. The simultaneous enactment of General Obligations Law § 11-106, which explicitly excludes co-employees from liability, further supports the interpretation that § 205-e allows such suits.

    Regarding Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), the Court distinguished this statute from the departmental directive in Desmond v. City of New York, 88 NY2d 455 (1996), noting that the statute establishes a clear legal duty to avoid reckless disregard for the safety of others, a standard sufficiently clear for assessing liability. “[T]he driver is not relieved of ‘the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others’ (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]).”

    As for the sidewalk case, the Court acknowledged its prior holding in St. Jacques v. City of New York, 88 NY2d 920 (1996), which found City Charter § 2904 and Administrative Code § 19-152 to be permissive rather than mandatory. However, it determined that City Charter § 2903(b)(2) and Administrative Code § 7-201(c), taken together, impose an affirmative duty on the City to maintain sidewalks, providing a basis for liability under § 205-e. “City Charter § 2903 (b) (2) places the ultimate duty to direct or effect repairs squarely on the City.”