You are here: / / PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL WHEN LEAVING A BATHROOM...

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL WHEN LEAVING A BATHROOM MET THE DEFINITION OF AN “ACCIDENT” IN THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW; SHE WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the comptroller’s ruling, determined the police officer’s slip and fall was an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law entitling her to accidental disability retirement benefits:

Petitioner’s slip and fall while exiting the bathroom was sudden and unexpected, and the precipitating event was not a risk of the work performed by her, i.e., was not the result of activity undertaken in the performance of her ordinary employment as a police officer … . Petitioner was not required to demonstrate that the slippery substance was not readily observable … . The Retirement System conceded at the hearing that the 2012 accident rendered petitioner permanently incapacitated and on appeal respondent — in conceding that petitioner was entitled to performance of duty disability retirement based upon the 2012 incident — necessarily conceded causation, i.e. that the 2012 fall caused her permanent incapacitation. Matter of Bucci v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 06968, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Petitioner police officer slipped and fell when leaving a bathroom. That was an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law entitling her to accidental disability retirement benefits.

 

You might also like
Proof Requirements for Constructive Possession of Contraband Explained
Object’s Fall of 1 ½ Feet Constituted Physically Significant Elevation Differential for Purposes of Requiring a Safety Device Pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1)
THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED A COMMUNITY OF PURPOSE WITH THE SHOOTER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT AND FIREARMS CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ACCEPTING A VERDICT BEFORE REQUESTED TESTIMONY WAS READ BACK TO THE JURY WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.
If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies
PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​
MOTHER, ALTHOUGH A FIT AND LOVING PARENT, WAS PROPERLY STRIPPED OF LEGAL CUSTODY, DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).
Declaratory Judgment Action Was Actually Seeking to Open a Default Judgment in a Tax Foreclosure Proceeding—30-Day Statute of Limitations in the Tax Law Applied

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

BOTH PARENTS OPPOSED VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE... DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR...