law and makes the elbow fitting substandard. It is well established under New York law that a violation of a City ordinance does not constitute negligence per se, and although it may be some evidence of negligence, the plaintiff must still show that the violation was a “substantial factor” or proximate cause of the injury at issue. See 1A New York Pattern Jury Instruction: Civil 2:29 (3d ed.2003); see also Huerta v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 290 A.D.2d 33, 735 N.Y.S.2d 5, 12 (App. Div.2001) (ruling that building code violation does not constitute negligence per se but is evidence of negligence, and plaintiff must show that failure to comply with building code was proximate cause of injury); cf. Elliott v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 730, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397, 747 N.E.2d 760, 762-64 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The failure to contain the manufacturer’s
holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation holding that a postal employees violations of internal customer safety regulations do not constitute negligence per se holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation