You are here: / / FIREFIGHTER’S FALL EXITING AN AMBULANCE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE...

FIREFIGHTER’S FALL EXITING AN AMBULANCE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the incident in which petitioner firefighter was injured constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law:

Petitioner testified that he had entered and exited ambulances hundreds of times during the course of his career as a firefighter. He was familiar with the folding step located at the rear of the ambulance and indicated that it was usually down and in an open position so that people could safely get in and out of the ambulance. He explained that the step was designed to flip up temporarily when a stretcher was being loaded into the ambulance to keep the wheels from striking the step and then to flip back down. Petitioner stated that, when he entered the ambulance on the date in question, the stretcher had already been removed, so he assumed that the step was down when he went to exit. He indicated that, as he was exiting the ambulance, he placed his foot on the edge of the step, which was a color similar to the bumper, while it was flipped up and flush against the bumper. When he did so, it collapsed downward, causing him to fall to the ground.

Under these circumstances, the precipitating external event, i.e., the flipping down of the folding step, was sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent in petitioner's ordinary job duties … . Likewise, petitioner's fall was not attributable to inattention or a mere misstep , but rather to an apparently malfunctioning piece of equipment that was designed, under normal circumstances, to promote safety … . Accordingly, respondent's denial of petitioner's application on the ground that the incident was not an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled. Matter of Loia v DiNapoliI, 2018 NY Slip Op 05984, Third Dept 9-6-18

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (FIREFIGHTER'S FALL EXITING AN AMBULANCE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, FIREFIGHTER'S FALL EXITING AN AMBULANCE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
MARITAL PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HE WAS GOING TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN.
ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS CULPABLE IN THE SEVERE BEATING BY MOTHER AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEATH OF THE CHILD, THE SEVERE ABUSE STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO “PARENTS” AS OPPOSED TO “PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE;” BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD BEATEN BY MOTHER, THE SEVERE ABUSE ADJUDICATION WAS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (THIRD DEPT).
LEASE WAS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION OF A STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM AND THE LANDLORD’S EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE... FRAUD WARRANTED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). â€...