Lang v. Kelly

992 N.E.2d 1085, 21 N.Y.3d 972
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 25, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 992 N.E.2d 1085 (Lang v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lang v. Kelly, 992 N.E.2d 1085, 21 N.Y.3d 972 (N.Y. 2013).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

In March 2008, petitioner tripped over computer wires that for several months had been strung on the floor across a locker room doorway in her precinct. In a 6-6 decision, respondent Board of Trustees denied her application for accidental disability retirement benefits (Matter of City of New York v Schoeck, 294 NY 559, 568 [1945] [tie vote of the Board of Trustees will be resolved against applicant]).

We agree with the Appellate Division that the Board of Trustees could find on this record that petitioner’s 2010 statement, which claimed that tape ordinarily secured the wires to the floor but was no longer present on the date she fell, was not credible. Because the record does not establish as a matter of law that petitioner’s injury resulted from an incident that was “sudden, fortuitous . . . unexpected [or] out of the ordinary,” the Board’s determination must be upheld (Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, 62 NY2d 563, 568 [1984]; Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 57 NY2d 1010, 1012 [1982]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of McCartan v. Shea
2022 NY Slip Op 07156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
The Matter of Rosa Rizzo v. Thomas P. DiNapoli
New York Court of Appeals, 2022
Matter of Carter v. New York City Empls.' Retirement Sys.
2021 NY Slip Op 06031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Stancarone v. DiNapoli
2018 NY Slip Op 2844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
992 N.E.2d 1085, 21 N.Y.3d 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-kelly-ny-2013.