Murphy v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Bratton

225 A.D.2d 411, 640 N.Y.2d 17, 640 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2695

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 411 (Murphy v. Bratton) 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

Murphy v. Bratton, 225 A.D.2d 411, 640 N.Y.2d 17, 640 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to such benefits by demonstrating that his loss of hearing was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident, which is a prerequisite to a grant of accident disability pension benefits (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 352; Matter of Ortiz v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 173 AD2d 237, lv denied 78 NY2d 864). Petitioner’s participation in firing exercises at the firing range was a part of her routine duties as a police officer and the hearing loss sustained as a result was not the kind of sudden and unexpected event necessary to constitute an accident (see, Matter of Schussler v Codd, 59 NY2d 698, 700, citing Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010). Rather, the hearing loss "was a risk inherent in petitioner’s regular duties” (Matter of Hambel v Regan, 174 AD2d 891, 892-893, affd 78 NY2d 1092).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to such benefits by demonstrating that his loss of hearing was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident, which is a prerequisite to a grant of accident disability pension benefits (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 352; Matter of Ortiz v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 173 AD2d 237, lv denied 78 NY2d 864). Petitioner’s participation in firing exercises at the firing range was a part of her routine duties as a police officer and the hearing loss sustained as a result was not the kind of sudden and unexpected event necessary to constitute an accident (see, Matter of Schussler v Codd, 59 NY2d 698, 700, citing Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010). Rather, the hearing loss "was a risk inherent in petitioner’s regular duties” (Matter of Hambel v Regan, 174 AD2d 891, 892-893, affd 78 NY2d 1092).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 411, 640 N.Y.2d 17, 640 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-bratton-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack