From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buono v. DiNapoli

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 17, 2016
144 A.D.3d 1386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

11-17-2016

In the Matter of Mark J. BUONO Sr., Petitioner, v. Thomas P. DINAPOLI, as State Comptroller, Respondent.

 Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains (Ryan K. Allen of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.


Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains (Ryan K. Allen of counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.

AARONS, J.Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner worked as a police officer for 15 years. On April 19, 2012, he was placing a suspect, who had been handcuffed, into the rear seat of the patrol vehicle when the suspect pulled away causing petitioner to be drawn toward the vehicle, to strike his neck and right shoulder on the door jamb, and to sustain injury. As a result of this incident, he filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The application was denied by the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System on the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Petitioner requested a hearing and, at its conclusion, the Hearing Officer denied the application for the same reason. Respondent adopted the Hearing Officer's decision and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. It is well settled that an accident, for purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, is “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” (Matter of Kenny v. DiNapoli, 11 N.Y.3d 873, 874, 874 N.Y.S.2d 399, 902 N.E.2d 952 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Beckley v. Nitido, 123 A.D.3d 1330, 1331, 998 N.Y.S.2d 535 [2014] ). The party seeking benefits bears the burden of establishing that the injury-producing event was accidental (see Matter of Lamb v. DiNapoli, 139 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 33 N.Y.S.3d 482 [2016] ; Matter of Scofield v. DiNapoli, 125 A.D.3d 1086, 1087, 3 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2015] ). Significantly, “[i]n order to be deemed accidental, an injury must not have been ‘the result of activities undertaken in the ordinary course of one's job duties' but, rather, ‘must be due to a precipitating accidental event which is not a risk of the work performed’ ” (Matter of Schoales v. DiNapoli, 132 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 18 N.Y.S.3d 765 [2015], quoting Matter of Pommerville v. McCall, 6 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 775 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2004] ; see Matter of Lamb v. DiNapoli, 139 A.D.3d at 1313, 33 N.Y.S.3d 482 ). Here, petitioner was performing a routine duty of his job when he responded to his fellow officer's request for assistance in placing the suspect, for whom there was a warrant outstanding, under arrest. He had a hold of the suspect and was in the process of guiding him into the back seat of the patrol vehicle, an activity that he had performed before and for which he had a specific protocol, when the suspect pulled away. Although petitioner did not anticipate this movement by the suspect, this does not render the incident accidental. Considering that the suspect had violently resisted arrest and was clearly agitated, it could be reasonably expected that he would not be cooperative in getting into the vehicle. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner's injury arose from an inherent risk of his job, substantial evidence supports the determination denying his application for accidental disability retirement benefits (see e.g. Matter of Beckley v. Nitido, 123 A.D.3d at 1331, 998 N.Y.S.2d 535 ; Matter of Quartucio v. DiNapoli, 110 A.D.3d 1336, 1337, 973 N.Y.S.2d 841 [2013] ; Matter of Hunce v. DiNapoli, 106 A.D.3d 1427, 1428–1429, 966 N.Y.S.2d 578 [2013] ).

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Buono v. DiNapoli

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 17, 2016
144 A.D.3d 1386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Buono v. DiNapoli

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Mark J. BUONO Sr., Petitioner, v. Thomas P. DINAPOLI, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 17, 2016

Citations

144 A.D.3d 1386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
41 N.Y.S.3d 774
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 7746

Citing Cases

Mitchell v. Dinapoli

" The discrepancy between the description of the incident as related in petitioner's testimony and the later…

Bell v. DiNapoli

Finally, although this apparently was the first time that petitioner had to restart the fans in the dark, he…