Lassen v. Hevesi

9 A.D.3d 780, 779 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9894
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 22, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 780 (Lassen v. Hevesi) 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
Lassen v. Hevesi, 9 A.D.3d 780, 779 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

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

Petitioner, a firefighter, was injured when he tripped over a [781]*781lawnmower on the front porch of a burning residence. At the time of the incident, petitioner was backing out of the building in order to observe the fire and to remove his equipment from the building. Petitioner had entered the residence through a different door, and did not know the lawnmower was there. Petitioner’s initial application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied. After a hearing, a Hearing Officer denied petitioner’s application on the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Respondent adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s conclusion that petitioner’s injury resulted from “an ordinary misstep and a risk inherent in the duties of a firefighter and [was not] an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law,” despite petitioner’s lack of awareness of the lawnmower (Matter of O’Donnell v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 249 AD2d 607, 607 [1998]; see Matter of Santorsola v McCall, 302 AD2d 727, 728 [2003]; Matter of Minchak v McCall, 246 AD2d 952, 952-953 [1998]). As such, we decline to disturb respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, 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

Related

Matter of McGoey v. DiNapoli
2021 NY Slip Op 03235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Buckley v. DiNapoli
2018 NY Slip Op 7812 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kelly v. DiNapoli
94 N.E.3d 444 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 2018)
Matter of Witts v. DiNapoli
137 A.D.3d 1456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Quartucio v. DiNapoli
110 A.D.3d 1336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Purcell v. DiNapoli
81 A.D.3d 1069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Magliato v. DiNapoli
78 A.D.3d 1457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Quinn v. New York State Comptroller
55 A.D.3d 1206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Melendez v. New York State Comptroller
54 A.D.3d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Franks v. New York State & Local Retirement System
47 A.D.3d 1115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Pappalardo v. Hevesi
34 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Coon v. New York State Comptroller
30 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.3d 780, 779 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lassen-v-hevesi-nyappdiv-2004.