You are here: / / IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR...
,

IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a police officer who receives benefits under General Municipal Law 207-c is not barred from suing for benefits under General Municipal Law 205-e in a city which does not provide workers’ compensation benefits. The officer her alleged asbestos-related injury caused by the building which housed the police station:

“In addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law,” section 205-e permits police officers to bring tort claims for injuries sustained “while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by . . . superior officers” where such injuries occur “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments” (General Municipal Law § 205-e [1]). Separately, section 207-c “provides for the payment of the full amount of regular salary or wages,” along with payment for medical treatment and hospital care, “to a police officer or other covered municipal employee who is injured ‘in the performance of his [or her] duties’ or is taken ill ‘as a result of the performance of [such] duties'” * * *

… [W]e reject the City’s argument, also adopted by the dissent, that General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits can be equated to workers’ compensation benefits for purposes of interpreting the proviso contained in General Municipal Law § 205-e [FN2]. The language of section 205-e prohibits only recipients of workers’ compensation benefits from commencing suit against their employers; it does not, by its terms, bar the commencement of suits by recipients of section 207-c benefits — which we have repeatedly recognized to be separate and distinct from workers’ compensation benefits. In fact, section 205-e states that the right contained therein is “[i]n addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law” (General Municipal Law § 205-e [1]). Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07817, CtApp 11-21-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)/POLICE OFFICERS (IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)/WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW (IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).
THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN HEAR THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE; A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN CONVICTION.
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT (CT APP). ​
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
MAJORITY: THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WAS NOT A COMPONENT OF THE SENTENCE AND THEREFORE THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BASED ON THE WAIVER; DISSENT: THE SHOCK WAIVER VIOLATES PUBLIC POLICY AND RENDERS THE SENTENCE ILLEGAL (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE ARRIVED AT USING A GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED IN UTERO INJURY FROM GASOLINE FUMES IN CAR MANUFACTURED BY DEFENDANT BMW.
Evidence of Prior Violent Act by Defendant Properly Admitted to Refute “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Affirmative Defense

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

PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED... NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE...