Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer concluded that the denial of benefits was proper because the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Respondent Comptroller upheld this determination and petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging it. The primary issue before us is whether the July 21, 2008 incident was an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that his injuries were the result of an accident, “meaning, that they were caused by a sudden and extraordinary event that is unrelated to the ordinary risks of employment” (Matter of Jarosz v. DiNapoli, 95 A.D.3d 1500, 1500–1501, 944 N.Y.S.2d 395 [2012], [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Del Salto v. DiNapoli, 115 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 982 N.Y.S.2d 796 [2014] ). Significantly, “the event must arise from risks that are not inherent to petitioner's regular employment duties” (Matter of Roberts v. DiNapoli, 117 A.D.3d 1166, 1166, 984 N.Y.S.2d 491 [2014] ; see Matter of Wise v. New York State Comptroller, 38 A.D.3d 1032, 1033–1034, 831 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 811, 844 N.Y.S.2d 787, 876 N.E.2d 516 [2007] ).

v. New York State Comptroller, 122 A.D.3d 983, 983–984, 996 N.Y.S.2d 388 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 915, 2015 WL 649411 [2015] ; Matter of Jarosz v. DiNapoli, 95 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 944 N.Y.S.2d 395 [2012] ; Matter of Murray v. New York State Comptroller, 84 A.D.3d 1681, 1682, 924 N.Y.S.2d 192 [2011] ), nor can it stem from hazards that may be reasonably anticipated (see Matter of Cavallo v. DiNapoli, 117 A.D.3d 1366, 1367, 986 N.Y.S.2d 881 [2014] ). Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the event producing the injury was an accident (see Matter of Magistro v. DiNapoli, 142 A.D.3d 750, 751, 37 N.Y.S.3d 630 [2016] ; Matter of Schoales v. DiNapoli, 132 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 18 N.Y.S.3d 765 [2015] ), and the Comptroller's determination will be upheld where it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Greco v. DiNapoli, 123 A.D.3d 1366, 1367, 999 N.Y.S.2d 274 [2014] ; Matter of Del Salto v. DiNapoli, 115 A.D.3d 1147, 1149, 982 N.Y.S.2d 796 [2014] ). There is no question that petitioner's heroic efforts saved many lives on the morning in question, and he is to be commended for his service in the protection of others.

We confirm. This Court has repeatedly held that accidental injuries are those caused by “a sudden and extraordinary event that is unrelated to the ordinary risks of employment” ( Matter of Carducci v. DiNapoli, 77 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 909 N.Y.S.2d 175 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Del Salto v. DiNapoli, 115 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 982 N.Y.S.2d 796 [2014]; Matter of Jarosz v. DiNapoli, 95 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 944 N.Y.S.2d 395 [2012] ). That is, “[a]n accident is defined as a sudden, fortuitous, out of the ordinary and unexpected event that does not result from an activity undertaken in the performance of regular or routine employment duties” ( Matter of Emerson v. DiNapoli, 115 A.D.3d 1145, 1145, 982 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Stimpson v. Hevesi, 38 A.D.3d 979, 980, 830 N.Y.S.2d 856 [2007]; Matter of Pryor v. Hevesi, 14 A.D.3d 776, 776, 788 N.Y.S.2d 239 [2005] ). Here, petitioner was injured when his police-issued glove caught on a bracket attached to an approximately 70–pound automobile seat that he was throwing from a police truck into a dumpster.