James v. County of Yates Sheriff's Department

300 A.D.2d 989, 752 N.Y.S.2d 513

This text of 300 A.D.2d 989 (James v. County of Yates Sheriff's Department) 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
James v. County of Yates Sheriff's Department, 300 A.D.2d 989, 752 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinions

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of Supreme Court, Yates County (Bender, J.), entered October 23, 2001, which granted the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to compel payment of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner is employed as a deputy sheriff for respondent County of Yates Sheriffs Department. In January 2001, he sustained a back injury when he slipped on ice and/or snow and fell while performing a routine building check as part of his patrol duties. Respondents denied petitioner’s application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, and petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the payment of those benefits. We agree with respondents that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. Section 207-c benefits are available “for injuries incurred in the performance of special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties” (Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau, 94 NY2d 253, 259). Here, the routine building check by petitioner did not involve a heightened risk or duty entitling him to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c (see Balcerak, 94 NY2d at 259-260; Matter of Stalter v Scarpato, 297 AD2d 382; Matter of Bonkoski v Village of Suffern, 296 AD2d 404; Matter of Sills v Livingston, 294 AD2d 922; Matter of Sutherland v Village of Suffern, 289 AD2d 582, lv denied 97 NY2d 613; Matter of Ertner v County of Chenango, 280 AD2d 851).

All concur except Lawton, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum.

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

Related

Balcerak v. County of Nassau
723 N.E.2d 555 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
White v. County of Cortland
766 N.E.2d 950 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Ertner v. County of Chenango
280 A.D.2d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Sutherland v. Village of Suffern
289 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Travison v. County of Albany
291 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Youngs v. Village of Penn Yan
291 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dobbertin v. Town of Chester
292 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sills v. Livingston
294 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bonkoski v. Village of Suffern
296 A.D.2d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Clements v. Panzarella
297 A.D.2d 4 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Stalter v. Scarpato
297 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Theroux v. Reilly
297 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 989, 752 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-county-of-yates-sheriffs-department-nyappdiv-2002.