LaMotta v. City of New York

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before MANGANO
• Citation: LaMotta v. City of New York, 515 N.Y.S.2d 554, 130 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1987
• Parties: Douglas LaMOTTA, etc., et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Page 554

515 N.Y.S.2d 554

130 A.D.2d 627

Douglas LaMOTTA, etc., et al., Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

May 18, 1987.

David M. Lee, New York City (Sidney N. Georgiou, on the brief), for appellants.

Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Fay Leoussis and Karen Hutson, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, LAWRENCE and KOOPER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated November 12, 1985, which is in favor of the defendant and against them, upon a jury verdict.

ORDERED, that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of having been struck by a police car driven by an on-duty New York City police officer. In their bill of particulars, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was negligent "in having improperly trained personnel [and] in failing to properly train personnel". At the trial, both the police officer who was driving the vehicle and his partner testified that when the accident occurred, they were en route to investigate a past burglary, which was considered a nonemergency call, and that, therefore, they proceeded at a normal pace, without activating either the dome lights or the siren of the police car.

The plaintiffs' claim that they were improperly precluded from questioning the police officers as to the driver's training they had undergone is without merit. The principal issue for the jury's determination was whether the police officer who was driving was negligent at the time of the accident, and not whether he was improperly trained (see, Eifert v. Bush, 27 A.D.2d 950, 279 N.Y.S.2d 368, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 372, 238 N.E.2d 759). Moreover, since the officers were not operating under emergency conditions, they were bound to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and the statutory provision governing the standard of care imposed upon officers when responding to an emergency (Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1104) is inapplicable (see, Jansen v. State of New York, 60 Misc.2d 36, 41, 301 N.Y.S.2d 811, affd. 32 A.D.2d 889, 302 N.Y.S.2d 1016).

While the trial court did frequently intervene in the trial by questioning witnesses and reprimanding counsel, it did not display any bias or prejudice with respect to either of the parties. The...