ABBADESSA v. CITY OF NEW YORK

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]).