Claim of Deleo v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Deleo v. McCall

251 A.D.2d 739, 673 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6478

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 739 (Claim of Deleo v. McCall) 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 Deleo v. McCall, 251 A.D.2d 739, 673 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—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 Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner, a labor foreman for the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, injured his left knee and back when in the course of exiting a truck he stepped on its running board which allegedly dropped four to five inches, causing him to fall. Petitioner testified that the running board had returned to its normal position after he fell but that he noticed that one of its screws was “a little loose”. The workers’ compensation report, however, indicated that petitioner slipped on the running board and made no mention that it sagged or was broken. The inconsistencies between this report and petitioner’s testimony raised questions of credibility which the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against petitioner (see, Matter of Smith v McCall, 228 AD2d 857, lv denied 89 NY2d 805; Matter of Farruggio v McCall, 222 AD2d 925, 926). The determination finding that the incident was the result of petitioner’s own misstep and did not constitute an “accident” within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 is, accordingly, confirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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

—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 Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner, a labor foreman for the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, injured his left knee and back when in the course of exiting a truck he stepped on its running board which allegedly dropped four to five inches, causing him to fall. Petitioner testified that the running board had returned to its normal position after he fell but that he noticed that one of its screws was “a little loose”. The workers’ compensation report, however, indicated that petitioner slipped on the running board and made no mention that it sagged or was broken. The inconsistencies between this report and petitioner’s testimony raised questions of credibility which the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against petitioner (see, Matter of Smith v McCall, 228 AD2d 857, lv denied 89 NY2d 805; Matter of Farruggio v McCall, 222 AD2d 925, 926). The determination finding that the incident was the result of petitioner’s own misstep and did not constitute an “accident” within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 is, accordingly, confirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 739, 673 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-deleo-v-mccall-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack