Crockett v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crockett v. Safir

269 A.D.2d 227, 703 N.Y.S.2d 109, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1541

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 227 (Crockett v. Safir) 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

Crockett v. Safir, 269 A.D.2d 227, 703 N.Y.S.2d 109, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered May 27, 1999, which denied petitioner police officer’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying her a line-of-duty injury designation, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, while on duty, was brushing her teeth in the ladies’ room of a police building when a mirror dislodged and struck her, causing her injuries. Her application under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-127 for a line-of-duty designation entitling her to City payment of her hospital bills was denied on the ground that she was not actually employed in discharging the orders of a superior officer at the time of the accident, as required by the statute. We cannot say that this reading of the statute as excluding personal hygiene not undertaken at the behest of a superior officer is irrational (see, Matter of Crowley v Brown, 202 AD2d 328). If the statute were intended to provide benefits for any accidental injuries sustained while on duty, it would have said so, or at least used language similar to the “city-service” language used in Administrative Code § 13-252 governing accident disability retirement pensions (see, Matter of Gasparino v Bratton, 92 NY2d 836). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered May 27, 1999, which denied petitioner police officer’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying her a line-of-duty injury designation, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, while on duty, was brushing her teeth in the ladies’ room of a police building when a mirror dislodged and struck her, causing her injuries. Her application under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-127 for a line-of-duty designation entitling her to City payment of her hospital bills was denied on the ground that she was not actually employed in discharging the orders of a superior officer at the time of the accident, as required by the statute. We cannot say that this reading of the statute as excluding personal hygiene not undertaken at the behest of a superior officer is irrational (see, Matter of Crowley v Brown, 202 AD2d 328). If the statute were intended to provide benefits for any accidental injuries sustained while on duty, it would have said so, or at least used language similar to the “city-service” language used in Administrative Code § 13-252 governing accident disability retirement pensions (see, Matter of Gasparino v Bratton, 92 NY2d 836). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 227, 703 N.Y.S.2d 109, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crockett-v-safir-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack