Smith v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. McCall

228 A.D.2d 857, 644 N.Y.2d 102, 644 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644

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

DecidedJune 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 857 (Smith v. McCall) 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

Smith v. McCall, 228 A.D.2d 857, 644 N.Y.2d 102, 644 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner worked as a communications specialist for the State Police. While descending a stairway at her place of employment to obtain a soda from the basement, petitioner caught her heel on a step and grabbed the handrail to prevent herself from falling. She suffered an injury to her lower back and applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. Respondent denied her application, finding that the incident which caused petitioner’s injury did not constitute an accident. Upon our review of the record, we find that this determination is supported by substantial evidence. On her application for accidental disability retirement benefits, claimant stated that her foot "caught or slipped on the stair”. At the hearing, however, she testified that her heel caught on a ripped vinyl tread covering the stair. These inconsistencies raised questions of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. Under the cir[858]*858cumstances presented, the Hearing Officer could rationally find that the incident causing petitioner’s injury was not accidental (see, Matter of Klug v McCall, 224 AD2d 818; cf., Matter of Balduzzi v McCall, 220 AD2d 796). Accordingly, we decline to disturb respondent’s determination.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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

Petitioner worked as a communications specialist for the State Police. While descending a stairway at her place of employment to obtain a soda from the basement, petitioner caught her heel on a step and grabbed the handrail to prevent herself from falling. She suffered an injury to her lower back and applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. Respondent denied her application, finding that the incident which caused petitioner’s injury did not constitute an accident. Upon our review of the record, we find that this determination is supported by substantial evidence. On her application for accidental disability retirement benefits, claimant stated that her foot "caught or slipped on the stair”. At the hearing, however, she testified that her heel caught on a ripped vinyl tread covering the stair. These inconsistencies raised questions of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. Under the cir[858]*858cumstances presented, the Hearing Officer could rationally find that the incident causing petitioner’s injury was not accidental (see, Matter of Klug v McCall, 224 AD2d 818; cf., Matter of Balduzzi v McCall, 220 AD2d 796). Accordingly, we decline to disturb respondent’s determination.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 857, 644 N.Y.2d 102, 644 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mccall-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack