Cunningham v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Brown

188 A.D.2d 403

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 403 (Cunningham v. Brown) 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

Cunningham v. Brown, 188 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart C. Cohen, J.), entered October 10, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for an accident disability pension, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner claims that she injured her back lifting the hood of her car in making a routine vehicle inspection, at a time when she was on restricted duty because of back injuries previously sustained in the line of duty. We agree with the IAS Court that respondents’ determination that petitioner’s injury was not the result of an unexpected event, and thus not an "accident” within the meaning of the statute, was correct. The determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010). [404]*404Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart C. Cohen, J.), entered October 10, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for an accident disability pension, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner claims that she injured her back lifting the hood of her car in making a routine vehicle inspection, at a time when she was on restricted duty because of back injuries previously sustained in the line of duty. We agree with the IAS Court that respondents’ determination that petitioner’s injury was not the result of an unexpected event, and thus not an "accident” within the meaning of the statute, was correct. The determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010). [404]*404Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-brown-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack