You are here: / / Injuries from Subduing Mentally Disturbed Person Not Accidental

Injuries from Subduing Mentally Disturbed Person Not Accidental

In confirming the denial of a police officer’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, the Third Department noted that the injuries suffered when subduing a mentally disturbed person were the result of a risk inherent in the duties of a police officer and did not constitute “a sudden, fortuitous, out of the ordinary and unexpected event that [did] not result from an activity undertaken in the performance of regular or routine employment duties” … . In the Matter of Carpenter v DiNapoli, 515251, 3rd Dept. 3-21-13

 

You might also like
Failure to Take Steps to Verify and Corroborate the Information from a Confidential Source Required Annulment and Expungement of the Misbehavior Determination
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUIRING A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING; THE APPELLATE COURT ORDERED A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING, INCLUDING A LINCOLN HEARING, AND ORDERED THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE THE PRESENT ATTORNEY HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF SUPPRESSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, THEREFORE THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E., A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER, WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT AND AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).
Court Should Have Instructed Jury on Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault in this Legal Malpractice Action
CLUB FEATURING SEMI-NUDE DANCERS WAS SUBJECT TO SALES TAX FOR SALE OF IN-HOUSE CURRENCY USED FOR ACCESS TO PRIVATE-ROOM DANCES (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Punitive Damages Award Injury to Officer from Collapsing Stretcher Deemed Accidental