You are here: / / Injury to Officer Who Was Pursuing a Suspect Not an “Accident”

Injury to Officer Who Was Pursuing a Suspect Not an “Accident”

In finding that injury to a police officer was not the result of an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Third Department wrote:

Here, petitioner was performing his regular police duties chasing a suspect within his authorized patrol area at the time he was injured. As we have recognized, the “pursuit of suspects is an ordinary employment duty of a police officer” … .  Petitioner’s pursuit took him through a wooded area to the edge of a ravine where he stopped because he recognized the danger of falling into it. Nevertheless, he stood too close to the edge, the edge gave way under his weight and he fell into the ravine in a manner that he reasonably could have anticipated… .  Matter Roth v DiNapoli, 515078, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

You might also like
Imposition of Fine After Promise No Fine Would Be Imposed Required Vacation of Guilty Plea
ALTHOUGH DEEMED HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT SHACKLED DURING A PORTION OF THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN, WHICH IS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ATTORNEYS IN CHILD WELFARE MATTERS, HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE HOST FAMILY HOMES PROGRAM WHICH PLACES CHILDREN WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF ATTORNEYS (THIRD DEPT).
CITY’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF AN EASEMENT SOUNDS IN CONTRACT, NOT TORT, NOTICE OF CLAIM NOT REQUIRED.
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JUROR WAS A LONG-TERM FRIEND OF AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S CASE.
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DISQUALIFYING CLAIMANT FROM FUTURE WAGE REPLACEMENT BENEFITS, MATTER REMITTED SO THAT ASPECT OF THE PENALTY CAN BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE, BUT AFTER THE VICTIM IMPACT HEARING A RESCISSION HEARING WAS HELD AND PAROLE WAS RESCINDED; THE RESCISSION WAS PROPERLY BASED UPON VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS SUPPLYING INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT “NEW” BUT WHICH WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THE PAROLE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND (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

Contacts Insufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Late Notice of Settlement of Negligence Action to Workers’ Compensation Carrier...