You are here: / / POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS...

POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge concurrence/dissent, determined that the injuries suffered by a policemen (Kelly) , who was injured preventing a rafter from falling on another officer attempting to rescue residents of a house crushed by a tree during Hurricane Sandy, and a firefighter (Sica), who was injured by odorless toxic gases while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on two unconscious persons, did not suffer accidental injury within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Therefore, neither petitioner was entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits:

… [T]here is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that Kelly’s actions in assisting the injured residents of the house during life-threatening conditions fell within his job duties, and that his injuries did not result from a sudden, unexpected event that was not a risk inherent in his duties as a police officer … . …

… [E]xposure to toxic chemicals was a risk for which Sica had been trained, that he had responded to a gas leak in the past, and that his job duties specifically required “working with exposure to . . . fumes, explosives, toxic materials, chemicals and corrosives,” the particular risk that caused Sica’s injury. Inasmuch as it is not unexpected that a firefighter whose job duties required him to respond to emergency medical calls would be exposed to toxic fumes in responding to a call for difficulty breathing, … Sica’s injuries were the result of a risk inherent in his ordinary duties as a firefighter … . Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 01016, CtApp 2-13-18

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))/POLICE OFFICERS  (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))/FIREFIGHTERS (ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP))

You might also like
Plaintiffs in Lead-Paint Exposure Cases Are Not Required to Hire an Expert to Link Injuries to Lead-Paint Exposure at the CPLR 3121 (a) Discovery Stage—However, Plaintiffs Must Provide Medical Reports Which Include a “Recital of the Injuries and Conditions as to which Testimony Will Be Offered at the Trial”
DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE NOT SPECIFIC OR SERIOUS ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, WHO ACCEPTED POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FROM HIS FRIEND, DID SO IN ANTICIPATION OF A POSSIBLE CONFRONTATION; DURING THE CONFRONTATION DEFENDANT SHOT TWO PEOPLE; THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE DID NOT RENDER DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL (CT APP).
Potential Versus Actual Conflict of Interest
ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES (ELD’S) WHICH KEEP TRACK OF COMMERCIAL TRUCKERS’ LOCATION, HOURS OF OPERATION AND MILES DO NOT FACILITATE UNREASONABLE SEARCHES; THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS HEAVILY REGULATED AND THE ELD’S AIM TO PREVENT DRIVER FATIGUE (CT APP).
THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) EXEMPTED THE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY FROM ANY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL); THE COMPANY WAS FREE TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE (CT APP).
THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIFIED (CT APP).
LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES.

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

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER... ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT...