You are here: / Retirement and Social Security Law
, ,

TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD THE 22 YEARS OF POLICE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the appellate division, determined tier 3 police officers may not count prior “non-police” service in computing the 22 years of service required for eligibility for retirement benefits:

… [T]ier 3 officers are eligible for retirement after 22 years of service without regard to their age … . The issue before us is whether a tier 3 police officer’s prior non-police service “qualifies to be counted as credited service pursuant to [Retirement and Social Security Law § 513]” … .

… [W]e conclude that the legislature intended tier 3 officers to receive the same service credit as their tier 2 counterparts, but restricted to the credit available prior to July 1, 1976.

Before July 1, 1976, the Administrative Code provided that a tier 2 officer would not be eligible for retirement until he or she “served in the police force for” the then-minimum period of 20 or 25 years … . This language plainly demonstrates that, prior to July 1, 1976, tier 2 officers could count only prior police service toward their retirement eligibility. Accordingly, tier 3 officers may receive retirement credit only for prior police service. Matter of Lynch v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02753, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Tier 3 NYC police officers cannot count years of non-police service toward retirement eligibility.

 

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).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, over a dissent, determined petitioner police officer was not entitled to accidental disability benefits for injuries incurred at his desk when he prevented himself from falling over backwards in his chair. When he attempted to roll the chair backwards it caught in a rut and petitioner was injured when he grabbed at a desk to keep from tipping over backwards:

Petitioner acknowledged that he was aware that the flooring at the front desk was in poor condition and that, both on previous occasions and prior to the incident that day, he had observed that there were two ruts in the flooring right behind the desk. Petitioner also testified that, in his estimation, the ruts were “three inches across, maybe a little more.” His testimony also demonstrates that he was aware that the chair he was utilizing that day had wheels and that, when sitting at the desk, those wheels would be in the “general area” of the holes. Given this testimony and the photographs of the floor that were admitted, respondent’s finding that petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the hazard — i.e., that the small wheels catching a depression in the floor would cause the chair to tip — was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, despite other reasonable interpretations. Therefore, the finding that the precipitating event was not unexpected and did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law will not be disturbed … . Matter of Bodenmiller v DiNapoli, 2023 NY Slip Op 01930, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: To constitute an accident under the Retirement and Social Security Law, the incident must be “unexpected.” Here petitioner was aware of the floor-defect which cause his chair to start tipping over backwards when the wheels caught in the defect. Therefore the incident was not “unexpected” within the meaning of the applicable law.

 

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER FELL TWICE AT NIGHT WHILE INVESTIGATING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY; HE FELL IN A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE WHEN CHECKING OUT A HOUSE AND HE FELL DOWN SOME STAIRS CHECKING OUT A PARKING LOT; NEITHER FALL WAS A COMPENSABLE “ACCIDENT” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the two falls by petitioner police officer were not compensable “accidents” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law and petitioner was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. The opinion discusses in some depth the difficulties of determining what is and what is not an “accident” in this context:

… [P]etitioner testified … he was assigned to the midnight shift and was in his patrol car when, at approximately 1:00 a.m., he became suspicious upon observing a light coming from the second floor of a house that was under construction. According to petitioner, it was “very dark” around the house due to the lack of streetlights in the area. Petitioner took a flashlight and began walking around the perimeter of the house, illuminating the second floor of the house as he walked, in accordance with police protocol. As he continued walking the perimeter of the house, petitioner fell in a three-foot-deep hole in the ground that had been dug alongside the house. As petitioner’s regular employment duties included conducting investigations in the dark, the risk that he might fall due to an unseen condition while engaged in such activity is an inherent risk of that employment … .

… [P]etitioner testified that, at approximately 2:00 a.m. … , he was investigating a report of a “suspicious party going through cars in a parking lot.” According to petitioner, it was drizzling that morning, and the area of the parking lot was dark. Petitioner was using a flashlight and, as he descended a wooden stairway that connected the parking lot to a baseball field, he was illuminating the field with the flashlight when he slipped and fell. Petitioner testified that, after his fall, he observed “green algae [and] mold,” as well as leaves, on the stairs. “When carrying out some police duties, an officer on foot may encounter, as part of the work being performed, a vast array of conditions, many of which are not easily traversed and can cause a fall. Encountering such conditions while actively engaged in police duties often is not an unexpected event, and the Comptroller may find a fall caused thereby to be an inherent risk of the job” … . Matter of Compagnone v DiNapoli, 2023 NY Slip Op 00354, Third Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: This opinion should be consulted when trying to determine what constitutes a compensable “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

 

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.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER NYC FIREFIGHTER WAS DENIED ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT (ADR) BENEFITS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION IN THE MEDICAL BOARD’S FINDINGS; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION BASED ON A RECORD ADEQUATE FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the denial of accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits in this firefighter-disability case, determined that the Medical Board’s failure to explain the reasons for its conclusion there was no accident and the injuries were not debilitating required remittal to the Medical Board and a new determination by the Board of Trustees with a record adequate for review:

… [T]he Medical Board found petitioner to be disabled on account of the left shoulder injuries he sustained on March 22, 2018. However, citing “inconsistencies” and a “lack of witnessed accounts . . . that would suggest . . . an accident,” the Board denied petitioner an ADR benefit. When the insufficient explanation was raised before the Board of Trustees, they acknowledged that a witness statement was not necessary, and stated that they did not understand what the Medical Board was referring to with regard to inconsistencies in the manner of petitioner’s injuries. Nevertheless, when the Board of Trustees reconsidered the matter, it simply took a vote on petitioner’s application without any deliberation or indication as to why he had been denied an ADR benefit, issuing a conclusory denial without any explanation as to why they had adopted the Medical Board’s unsupported statements about alleged inconsistencies concerning the nature of petitioner’s injuries.

The Medical Board failed to provide any factual basis concerning the alleged inconsistencies and why it did not believe petitioner’s injuries to be accidental. Further, the determination of the Medical Board was devoid of any articulated basis for its conclusion that the limitations of petitioner’s cervical and lumbar spine were not a debilitating or incapacitating condition for performing the duties of a firefighter. The failure to set forth an adequate statement of the factual basis for the determination forecloses the possibility of fair judicial review … . Matter of Reynolds v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 2022 NY Slip Op 06330, First Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Here the injured NYC firefighter was denied accidental disability retirement (ADR) but the Medical Board did not give any reasons for its conclusion. The findings were annulled and the matter remitted for a new determination and the creation of an adequate record for review.

 

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.

 

PETITIONER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WAS INJURED WHEN A HEAVY SELF-CLOSING DOOR CLOSED ON HER AS SHE LEFT THE HEARING ROOM; THE INCIDENT WAS AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW ENTITLING PETITIONER TO DISABILTIY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the finding that petitioner was not injured in an “accident,” determined petitioner was entitled to disability benefits. Petitioner, an administrative law judge, was injured leaving a hearing room when a heavy door closed on her:

… [P]etitioner bears the burden of establishing that the disability was the result of an accident, which is defined as “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” … . “Under this standard, petitioner was required to demonstrate that [her] injuries were caused by a precipitating event that was sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent in [her] ordinary job duties” … . …

Although petitioner was aware of the hazard posed by the heavy, self-closing door, she reasonably expected that the supervisor, who was holding the door open, would continue to do so as petitioner walked through. Thus, petitioner demonstrated that her injuries were caused by a “sudden [and] unexpected” precipitating event — the supervisor letting go of the heavy, self-closing door while petitioner walked through it — which was not a risk inherent in her job duties …. Matter of Campbell v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 05911, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here a heavy self-closing door closed on the petitioner, an administrative law judge, as she left the hearing room. The incident was “sudden, unexpected and not a risk inherent in her ordinary job duties.” Therefore the incident was an “accident” under the Retirement and Social Security Law, entitling petitioner to disability benefits.

 

,

THE RULING THAT PETITIONER-CORRECTION-OFFICER’S DISABLING CONDITION WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ALTERCATION WITH AN INMATE WAS SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” IN THIS CONTEXT IS DEFINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that substantial evidence supported the ruling by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) that petitioner-correction-officer’s disabling condition was not related to an altercation with an inmate. Therefore petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits. The dissent would have ordered a new hearing because of the possibility untrue information in the record (i.e., that petitioner altered an MRI report) affected the ruling:

Ordinarily, the decision of the board of trustees as to the cause of an officer’s disability will not be disturbed unless its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or its final determination and ruling is arbitrary and capricious” … . Substantial evidence has been construed in disability cases, as requiring some credible evidence … . Credible evidence has been described as evidence that proceeds from a credible source, which reasonably tends to support the proposition for which it is offered … . * * *

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention and the position of our dissenting colleague, the record does not demonstrate that the Board of Trustees was misled by reports prepared by the Medical Board that contained a statement that the petitioner altered an MRI report or by statements that he returned to “full duty” after the incident and continued to work for “several years.” With regard to the MRI report, … the Chair of the Medical Board informed the Board of Trustees that the discrepancy between the MRI reports submitted on two different days was resolved by the inspector general’s office and that the addendum was written by a doctor. With regard to the issue of whether the petitioner returned to full duty and continued to work for several years, when he worked for approximately one year and seven months after the incident, the petitioner had multiple opportunities to testify and to present evidence of these facts, which the Board of Trustees considered. Matter of Singleton v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 2022 NY Slip Op 05089, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: In the context of a Retirement and Social Security Law disability-benefits hearing to determine whether a correction officer’s disabling condition was caused by an altercation with an inmate, the denial of disability benefits must be supported by “substantial evidence” which requires “some credible evidence,” meaning evidence from a “credible source.” Here the denial of benefits was upheld.

 

PETITIONER, A COURT OFFICER, SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE COURTHOUSE; THE FALL WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Comptroller, determined petitioner court officer suffered a compensable accident when slipped on a wet floor in the courthouse and may therefore be entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits:

Petitioner testified that she was on duty and returning to the security office at the end of her shift when she “slipped on the wet floor” in the courthouse where she was assigned. Having fallen to the ground on her back, she “felt the water on the floor” and observed that the whole area appeared to be wet as though recently mopped. She stated that she did not observe that the floor — which was light in color — was wet before her fall and, further, there had been no signs advising of the hazard. She had never seen anyone mopping in the courthouse and was wearing nonslip shoes as part of her uniform at the time of the fall.

Like the incidents deemed accidental in Matter of Knight v McGuire (62 NY2d 563 [1984] [accident where the petitioner slipped on wet pavement getting into a patrol car]) and Matter of Gasparino v Bratton (92 NY2d 836, 838-839 [1998] [accident where the petitioner slipped in water on a bathroom floor]), the precipitating event here was not a risk of the work performed by petitioner. Her description of the incident also demonstrates that her fall was sudden and unexpected … . Matter of Como v New York State Comptroller, 2022 NY Slip Op 01223, Third Dept 2-24-22

 

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S SITTING IN A DESK CHAIR (WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND TO BE BROKEN), LEANING BACK, FALLING BACKWARD AND INJURING HIS HEAD CONSTITUTED AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Comptroller, over a dissent, annulled the determination that petitioner police officer was not injured in an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner alleged he sat in a desk chair, leaned back and fell over striking his head. There was evidence the chair was broken:

Petitioner’s burden was to demonstrate that his disability arose out of an accident which, for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, is defined as “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” … . * * *

In our view, the incident as described constitutes an accident. Contrary to the findings of the Hearing Officer, whether the chair was broken prior to or during the fall is of no moment, as either way petitioner was unaware of any defect. In either situation, the collapse of a chair back would be a sudden, unexpected outcome for anyone who simply sits and leans back. Matter of Crone v DiNapoli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00481, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy