A plaintiff may serve a supplemental bill of particulars, even without leave of court, to assert statutory violations which merely amplify his or her theories of liability (see, CPLR 3043 Noetzell v. The City argues that the portion of Balsamo's General Municipal Law § 205-e claim which is based on the violation of Labor Law § 27-a must be dismissed since the complaint failed to set forth any such violation.The Court of Appeals has stated that in order for a statutory violation to serve as the basis of a claim under General Municipal Law § 205-e, the statute must impose clear legal duties or be part of a well-developed body of law and regulation with positive commands that mandate the performance or nonperformance of specific acts (see, Gonzalez v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 347 Corbisiero v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 341 Brunelle v. Moreover, to establish liability under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a plaintiff must describe the manner in which the injury occurred and demonstrate a reasonable connection between the alleged violation of a relevant statute or ordinance and the resulting injury to the police officer (see, Zanghi v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 711 MacKay v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 694 Lawrence v. For a plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries under General Municipal Law § 205-e, the pleadings must identify the particular statute or ordinance allegedly violated by the defendant (see, Zanghi v.
Therefore, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the City's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that an issue of fact existed as to whether the unpadded computer console was a "recognized hazard" within the meaning of Labor Law § 27-a, as the City possessed all of the factual information regarding the computer console and failed to disclose it (see, Ellis v.
Iocovello, supra, at 552-53 Corbisiero v. While Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) imposes a general duty of care, General Municipal Law § 205-e provides a right of recovery for statutory, regulatory, and code violations which codify a common-law duty (see, Gonzalez v. City of New York, 92 N.Y.2d 308, 317), we find that a violation of Labor Law § 27-a may constitute a sufficient predicate for a claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e which is based on an allegation of a workplace safety violation (see, Sciangula v. Iocovello, supra, at 548, quoting Schiavone v. Therefore, inasmuch as Labor Law § 27-a imposes a clear legal duty on public employers to provide a safe workplace for their employees, and "`an expansive interpretation is consistent with the over-all goal of '" (Gonzalez v. Moreover, Labor Law § 27-a is applicable to the uniformed services and the safety or protective equipment provided to them (see, Matter of City of New York v. However, General Municipal Law § 205-e(3) expressly provides for a right of action "regardless of whether the injury * * * is caused by the violation of a provision prohibiting activities or conditions which increase the dangers inherent in the work of any officer, member, agent or employee of any police department".