From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penkalski v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 14, 2002
292 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

90659

March 14, 2002.

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 which denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Andrea L. Sammarco, Buffalo, for petitioner.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT


Petitioner, a police officer, sustained a disabling knee injury when he slipped and fell on wet grass while chasing a suspect. Ruling that petitioner did not sustain an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, respondent denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination, petitioner claims that his slip and fall on wet grass was sudden and unexpected and, therefore, an accident. We disagree.

Crucial to the finding of an accident in cases of this nature is "a precipitating accidental event * * * which was not a risk of the work performed" (Matter of McCambridge v. McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563, 567-568). Thus, "[u]nless the injury results from an event that would not ordinarily be anticipated in the context of the worker's employment, it cannot be defined as an `accidental' injury" (Matter of Butler v. McCall, 247 A.D.2d 709, 710). In chasing a suspect, petitioner was certainly engaged in police work and, in the performance of this work, exposure to a variety of conditions, including wet grass, was an inherent risk that would ordinarily be anticipated. Accordingly, respondent could rationally conclude that petitioner's slip and fall on the wet grass encountered during the chase was a risk of the work performed (see,Matter of O'Donnell v. New York State Local Retirement Sys., 249 A.D.2d 607; Matter of Minchak v. McCall, 246 A.D.2d 952). The determination is, therefore, confirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Penkalski v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 14, 2002
292 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Penkalski v. McCall

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD L. PENKALSKI, Petitioner, v. H. CARL McCALL, AS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 14, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 763

Citing Cases

Santorsola v. McCall

Petitioner stated that his eyes were on the target when he ran behind his partner and tripped over his…

Roth v. Dinapoli

As we have recognized, the “pursuit of suspects is an ordinary employment duty of a police officer” (Matter…