Opinion
June 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs' complaint was properly dismissed. The pleadings failed to set forth the particular Vehicle and Traffic Law provisions allegedly violated by the partner of the plaintiff police officer with respect to the operation of the radio motor patrol vehicle ( see, Zanghi v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., 85 N.Y.2d 423, 441; Gibbons v. Ostrow, 234 A.D.2d 415; MacKay v. Misrok, 215 A.D.2d 734, 735; Hoey v. Kuchler, 208 A.D.2d 805). As for the Patrol Guide procedures allegedly violated, these are general guidelines for the operation of radio motor patrol vehicles that neither impose a clear legal duty nor constitute a well-developed body of law and regulations with positive commands mandating the performance or nonperformance of specific acts and therefore cannot serve as the predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e ( see, Desmond v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 455, 464).
Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.