Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Ronald Goode, a Suffolk County police officer, was injured when he slipped and fell on some debris while responding to a burglar alarm on the defendant's premises on a rainy night in October 1986. A jury trial ensued in October 1990. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the so-called firemen's rule (see, Santangelo v. State of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 393). The trial court granted the motion. However, on appeal, this Court reversed and granted the plaintiffs a new trial (see, Goode v United Artists E. Theatre Corp., 190 A.D.2d 710). Thereafter, the defendant again moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant argued that a subsequent Court of Appeals decision (see, Cooper v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 584) had rejected the reasoning employed by this Court on the prior appeal. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion, and this appeal ensued.
In our prior decision in this case, we relied upon the separate-and-distinct exception to the so-called firemen's rule, which states that the Santangelo case does not apply when the alleged "failure to maintain the premises in a safe condition was not related to the situation which created the need for the plaintiff's services as a police officer." However, since that decision, the Court of Appeals has, on two separate occasions, expressly rejected the separate-and-distinct exception, stating that it is inconsistent with the rationale of the Santangelo case (see, Cooper v. City of New York, supra; Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423).
Since the plaintiff Ronald Goode's injuries arose out of a particular danger that police officers are expected to assume as part of their duties, the plaintiffs' action is barred by the so-called firemen's rule, nothwithstanding the fact that there was no connection between the defendant's negligence and the incident that gave rise to Ronald Goode's duty to perform police functions (see, Cooper v. City of New York, supra; Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., supra; Smith v. County of Erie, 210 A.D.2d 933; Hoey v. Kuchler, 208 A.D.2d 805; Cottone v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 345). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.
Comments