Ordered that the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs' post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial, was properly denied. There is plainly a rational view of the trial evidence that supports the jury's verdict (see, Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493). Moreover, the jury's verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).
High-speed auto chases by the police are specifically authorized by the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [3]), notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180. Under the circumstances, the jury could have found that the officers' brief pursuit of the fleeing vehicle, after being alerted by a police radio report that the occupants were robbery suspects who had already eluded another police unit, was in conformity with the procedures for high-speed auto pursuits as set forth in the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide (hereinafter Patrol Guide).
We note that the City's contention that a violation of a Patrol Guide procedure cannot serve as a predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e is without merit (see, Galapo v City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 581 [decided herewith]; Desmond v City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 576 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.