A New York City Police Officer received a settlement of $600,000 from the City of New York after sustaining numerous facial fractures, a knee injury and a shoulder injury all of which required surgery. The Officer was subsequently awarded a ¾ line-of-duty disability pension. The Officer was injured when he was returning from a detail, the RMP veered left and crashed into the center median of a highway. An inspection of the RMP after the accident revealed the axle of the driver’s front tire broke causing the Officer to lose control of the vehicle. Although the Police Officer’s Right to Sue statute GML §205-e allows Police Officers the right to sue for injuries sustained in line-of-duty accidents caused by RMP malfunctions or defects, it is the Officer’s burden to demonstrate the department had actual or constructive notice of the malfunction or defect. If the Officer was unable to prove this notice requirement, there would have been a distinct probability that the Court would have dismissed the case. DCD filed a notice of claim against the City of New York within the 90-day time limitation. DCD then sued the City of New York pursuant to GML §205-e alleging the City of New York violated Labor Law §27-a(3) in not providing the Officer with a safe place to work and Vehicle & Traffic Law §375 in allowing the Officer to operate the RMP with an equipment malfunction. DCD hired an accident reconstructionist who also inspected the vehicle. After inspecting the vehicle, the expert researched the 2008 Ford Crown Victoria and found that some of these police cars were recalled for faulty steering. The expert also examined the maintenance history of the subject vehicle. The City of New York also consulted their own expert to dispute the argument that the subject matter of the recall notice led to the equipment failure of the RMP and that it was a different part of the wheel which broke causing the accident. The City continued to argue that the department did not have any actual (i.e., work orders, prior maintenance records, log entries or memo book entries) or constructive notice (i.e., rust on the wheel or axle) of the condition of the axle prior to the separation from the wheel. DCD argued that the vehicle was subject to a recall for faulty steering thereby providing the City with adequate notice of pending malfunction. After extensive settlement negotiations, the Officer elected not to go to trial and accepted the City of New York’s offer of $600,000 to settle the case.