Claim of Chilelli v. DiNapoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Chilelli v. DiNapoli

91 A.D.3d 1098, 936 N.Y.2d 733

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1098 (Claim of Chilelli v. DiNapoli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Chilelli v. DiNapoli, 91 A.D.3d 1098, 936 N.Y.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Egan Jr., J.

As the applicant, petitioner bore the burden of establishing that her injury was caused by “a sudden and extraordinary event that [was] unrelated to the ordinary risks of [her] employment” (Matter of Bleeker v New York State Comptroller, 84 AD3d 1683, 1683-1684 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of O’Neill v DiNapoli, 83 AD3d 1280, 1280 [2011]), and respondent’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole (see Matter of Ruggiero v DiNapoli, 85 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 711 [2011]; Matter of West v DiNapoli, 79 AD3d 1565, 1565 [2010]). “[I]njuries that arise out of an employee’s own misstep or inattention will not merit an accidental disability determination” (Matter of Piccinini v DiNapoli, 68 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Magliato v DiNapoli, 78 AD3d 1457, 1458 [2010]), and any inconsistencies between written documents and an applicant’s sworn testimony present a credibility issue for respondent to resolve (see Matter of Dilello v DiNapoli, 83 AD3d 1361, 1362-1363 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]; Matter of Confreda v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 938, 940 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 708 [2009]).

Here, petitioner’s application for retirement benefits, as well as the underlying incident report, indicate that her injury was [1099]*1099caused when she tripped over a curb during the performance of her ordinary duties, i.e., helping school children cross the street. Inasmuch as there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that the incident was not an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, it will not be disturbed — despite evidence in the record that arguably could support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of O’Keefe v McCall, 287 AD2d 921, 922 [2001]).

Peters, J.P, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Egan Jr., J.

As the applicant, petitioner bore the burden of establishing that her injury was caused by “a sudden and extraordinary event that [was] unrelated to the ordinary risks of [her] employment” (Matter of Bleeker v New York State Comptroller, 84 AD3d 1683, 1683-1684 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of O’Neill v DiNapoli, 83 AD3d 1280, 1280 [2011]), and respondent’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole (see Matter of Ruggiero v DiNapoli, 85 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 711 [2011]; Matter of West v DiNapoli, 79 AD3d 1565, 1565 [2010]). “[I]njuries that arise out of an employee’s own misstep or inattention will not merit an accidental disability determination” (Matter of Piccinini v DiNapoli, 68 AD3d 1212, 1212 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Magliato v DiNapoli, 78 AD3d 1457, 1458 [2010]), and any inconsistencies between written documents and an applicant’s sworn testimony present a credibility issue for respondent to resolve (see Matter of Dilello v DiNapoli, 83 AD3d 1361, 1362-1363 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]; Matter of Confreda v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 938, 940 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 708 [2009]).

Here, petitioner’s application for retirement benefits, as well as the underlying incident report, indicate that her injury was [1099]*1099caused when she tripped over a curb during the performance of her ordinary duties, i.e., helping school children cross the street. Inasmuch as there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that the incident was not an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, it will not be disturbed — despite evidence in the record that arguably could support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of O’Keefe v McCall, 287 AD2d 921, 922 [2001]).

Peters, J.P, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1098, 936 N.Y.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-chilelli-v-dinapoli-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack