DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
To establish a prima facie case under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a plaintiff, in addition to demonstrating a violation of a relevant statute, ordinance, or regulation, must also establish a practical or reasonable connection between the violation and the injury or death of the police officer (see, Cotter v. Spear, 139 A.D.2d 555, 557 ; see also, Mullen v. Zoebe, 86 N.Y.2d 135, 140 ; Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, 441 ; Brunelle v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 347 [decided herewith]; McGee v. Adams Paper Twine Co., 26 A.D.2d 186, 195, affd 20 N.Y.2d 921 ; Daggett v. Keshner, 284 App. Div. 733 ). Here, even if the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations allegedly violated are part of a well-developed body of law containing particularized mandates or imposing a clear legal duty on the plaintiffs' employer (see,Gonzalez v. Iocovello, 93 N.Y.2d 539 ; Desmond v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 455 ; St. Jacques v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 920 ), the facts that have been pleaded are insufficient to make out a violation of the predicate regulations or to establish the requisite causal connection between the alleged violations and the injuries sustained (see, Sciangula v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 833 ; see also, Kenavan v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 353 [2d Dept., Dec. 20, 1999]).