You are here: / / Injuries from Subduing Mentally Disturbed Person Not Accidental

Injuries from Subduing Mentally Disturbed Person Not Accidental

In confirming the denial of a police officer’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, the Third Department noted that the injuries suffered when subduing a mentally disturbed person were the result of a risk inherent in the duties of a police officer and did not constitute “a sudden, fortuitous, out of the ordinary and unexpected event that [did] not result from an activity undertaken in the performance of regular or routine employment duties” … . In the Matter of Carpenter v DiNapoli, 515251, 3rd Dept. 3-21-13

 

You might also like
Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination by Both Attesting Witnesses Did Not Require Dismissal of Petition to Admit Will to Probate
PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
THE ORIGINAL CUSTODY ORDER WAS ISSUED IN NEW JERSEY, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; THE NEW YORK CUSTODY ORDER MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE FAMILY COURT DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE NEW JERSEY COURT AND NO FINDING WAS MADE ON WHETHER NEW JERSEY HAD RELINQUISHED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OR WHETHER NEW YORK WAS A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT SURGEONS PERFORMED A CHIROPRACTIC PROCEDURE DURING SPINAL FUSION SURGERY SOUNDED IN BATTERY, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A CHIROPRACTOR, WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS HAD CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THE ELECTION LAW AND COMPELLING REMEDIAL ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
Indictment Count Did Not State an Offense; Jurisdictional Defect Can Not Be Cured by Amendment
THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT PLAINTIFF WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION THE INMATE CURSED AT AND THREATENED A CORRECTION OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THE OFFICER WAS NOT WEARING A BODY CAMERA, DESPITE THE PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN 2018 (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

Criteria for Punitive Damages Award Injury to Officer from Collapsing Stretcher Deemed Accidental