Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp.

• Decision Date: 26 November 2001
• Citation: 733 N.Y.S.2d 679,288 A.D.2d 433
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: STEVEN GIUFFRIDA, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CITIBANK CORP. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

288 A.D.2d 433

733 N.Y.S.2d 679

STEVEN GIUFFRIDA, Appellant,

v.CITIBANK CORP. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Decided November 26, 2001.

Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Steven Giuffrida, a New York City firefighter, allegedly sustained burn and smoke inhalation injuries while fighting a fire in premises held in trust by the defendant Citibank Corp., and subleased by the defendant Denny's Doughnut, Inc. While the plaintiff was battling a raging fire, the alarm on his air supply equipment sounded, signaling that he had only six minutes of air left. He notified his lieutenant of this circumstance and that he needed to immediately exit the building. However, the plaintiff was instead directed to leave the building with his fellow firefighters, who had all been ordered out. During this orderly retreat, the plaintiff operated the last hose, enabling his fellow firefighters to escape. As he finally turned to leave himself, the plaintiff's air supply ran out and he was overcome by smoke. He commenced this action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a, alleging, inter alia, that the fire was caused by accumulated grease in the ventilation system in the doughnut shop kitchen, and that the respondents and the other defendants violated relevant state and city regulations requiring them to maintain proper fire protection systems in the premises. The Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

To establish a prima facie case under General Municipal Law § 205-a, a plaintiff, in addition to demonstrating a violation of the relevant statute, code, or rule, must also establish a "practical or reasonable connection between a [statutory or code] violation and the injury" (McGee v Adams Paper & Twine Co., 26 AD2d 186, 195; see, Mullen v Zoebe, 86 NY2d 135, 140; Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 NY2d 423, 441; see also, Davison v Order Ecumenical, 281 AD2d 383; Kenavan v City of New York, 267 AD2d 353, 355). Although the plaintiff is not required to show the same degree of proximate cause as is required in a common-law negligence action, he must show some connection between his injuries and the violation alleged (see, Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., supra).

In this case, the respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they demonstrated the absence of a reasonable...