Case Name: Rodney Lewis, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-09-16
Citations: 131 A.D.3d 1134
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rodney Lewis, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 1134–1135

Head Matter:
Rodney Lewis, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.
[16 NYS3d 621]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated May 13, 2014, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, a New York City police officer, was shot in the torso while in the process of apprehending a suspect in Queens County. At the time of the shooting, the plaintiff was wearing a bullet-proof vest issued by the City of New York that did not cover the bullet's entry point. It is undisputed that the vest worn by the plaintiff was in good condition and compliant with standards set by the National Institute of Justice.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the City, asserting causes of action based on, among other things, common-law negligence and violations of General Municipal Law § 205-e. The plaintiff claims that his injuries were caused by the City's negligence in failing to provide him with a vest that covered a larger area of his torso, and that the City had provided larger vests to most other officers and to new recruits.
The Supreme Court properly granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity. The City's decision-making process regarding the particular type of vests it issues to police officers is a discretionary governmental function (see McCormack v City of New York, 80 NY2d 808, 811 [1992]; Loschiavo v City of New York, 84 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2011]; Miniero v City of New York, 65 AD3d 861, 863 [2009]; Amodio v City of New York, 33 AD3d 456, 457 [2006]) and, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the City demonstrated that its decision in this case was not irrational or arbitrary. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.