You are here: / / BECAUSE PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE THE DOOR COULD SLAM SHUT, THE...

BECAUSE PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE THE DOOR COULD SLAM SHUT, THE FACT THAT THE DOOR DID SLAM SHUT CRUSHING HER FINGER WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE “UNEXPECTED” “ACCIDENT” PURSUANT TO THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW; STRONG DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of disability benefits on the ground the heavy door blowing shut on petitioner’s finger was not an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The affirmance is a brief memorandum decision. The dissent by Judge Wilson is a full-fledged opinion. The majority noted that the petitioner was aware the door slammed shut. The event was not “unexpected” and therefore was not a compensable “accident:”

An ” ‘injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury’ ” … .

Petitioner conceded that she knew that the heavy metal door slammed automatically and that on the day of the injury her movements were intended to avoid that quick and forceful closure. While the known condition may be a risk of the work site, it cannot be the cause of an accident compensable under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. …​

From the dissent:

Rosa Rizzo worked for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as a police officer. On a cold February day, she trudged through the sleet and cold winds at the Lincoln Tunnel to tend to an ailing woman, staying with her until an ambulance arrived. Once it arrived, Officer Rizzo gathered the names of the parties and witness testimony and then headed towards the heated MTA booth so she could write her report. She had used the booth before and knew that its door could swing closed, but she had never heard of anyone being injured by it. As she squeezed into the booth, however, a violent gust of wind blew the 80 to 100 pound door shut, crushing her right index finger and permanently disabling her from returning to her to a full duty position. Matter of Rizzo v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 06027, CtApp 10-27-22

Practice Point: In order for an injury to be compensable under the Retirement and Social Security Law it must be the result of an “unexpected” event. Here petitioner was aware the door could slam shut and took steps to avoid injury, but the door crushed her finger. That was not a compensable “accident.” There was a strong dissenting opinion.

 

You might also like
8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary
BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE 911 CALL WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE CALLER AND THE BASIS FOR THE CALLER’S KNOWLEDGE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS IRRELEVANT (CT APP).
Defendant’s Limited Right to Seek the Advice of an Attorney Before Consenting to a Breathalyzer Test Was Violated When the Sheriff’s Department Administered the Test Without First Telling Defendant an Attorney Had Communicated with the Sheriff’s Department on Her Behalf
Unambiguous Language in Rider Covered Loss Caused by Hackers Gaining Unauthorized Access to the Insured’s Computers, Not Loss Caused by Fraudulent Billing Entries by Authorized Users
MOTHER’S APPEALS FROM EXPIRED PERMANENCY HEARING ORDERS (RE: CHILDREN’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS MOOT, TWO COMPREHENSIVE DISSENTING OPINIONS (THREE DISSENTING JUDGES) (CT APP).
THE USE OF PEPPER SPRAY BY JAIL PERSONNEL (AFTER A WARNING) WHEN DEFENDANT REFUSED TO TAKE OFF HIS SHOES WAS NOT “EXCESSIVE FORCE;” THEREFORE DEFENDANT, WHO ASSAULTED THE OFFICER FIVE SECONDS AFTER HE WAS SPRAYED, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN HIS ASSAULT TRIAL (CT APP). ​
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DISCOVERY MAY AID THE INQUIRY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AWARD WAS PREMATURE (CT APP).

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

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT CHARGE DEFENDANT WITH CREATING... THE RECEIVER APPOINTED TO CONTROL PROPERTY INVOLVED IN AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE...