Matter of Manning v DiNapoli
2017 NY Slip Op 03591 [150 AD3d 1382]
May 4, 2017
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 28, 2017


[*1]
 In the Matter of Joan Jamison Manning,Petitioner,
v
Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, et al.,Respondents.

Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP, New York City (Paul N.Macerino of counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondents.

Rose, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of theSupreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptrollerdenying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

In September 2000, petitioner began working as a police officer for the Suffolk CountyPolice Department. On December 14, 2007, after responding to the scene of an automobileaccident, petitioner stepped into a pothole, tripped and fell to the ground. On February 27, 2013,while working at her desk, one of the wheels to her chair got caught in a rut in the floor surfacecausing her chair to tip, and petitioner sustained injuries in her attempt to avoid falling to thefloor. Thereafter, as a result of injuries that she sustained from these incidents, petitioner filed anapplication for accidental disability retirement benefits. Respondent New York State and LocalPolice and Fire Retirement System denied her application on the ground that neither theDecember 2007 incident nor the February 2013 incident constituted an accident within themeaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.[FN*] A Hearing Officer upheld the denial of her[*2]application for the same reason, and respondent Comptrollersubsequently adopted the Hearing Officer's decision. This CPLR article 78 proceedingensued.

We confirm. "Injuries sustained due to conditions that are readily observable and that couldbe reasonably anticipated, or attributable to an employee's own misstep or inattention, do notconstitute accidents within the context of the Retirement and Social Security Law" (Matter of Powers v DiNapoli, 144AD3d 1380, 1381 [2016]; seeMatter of Lamb v DiNapoli, 139 AD3d 1312, 1313 [2016]; Matter of Holden v DiNapoli, 122AD3d 1105, 1106 [2014]). "The burden is on the party seeking benefits to establish that theinjury-producing event was accidental in nature" (Matter of Magistro v DiNapoli, 142 AD3d 750, 751 [2016][citations omitted]; see Matter ofRosenbergen v DiNapoli, 144 AD3d 1384, 1385 [2016]).

Regarding the incident of December 14, 2007, petitioner testified that after responding to anautomobile accident on a highway and exiting her vehicle to speak to individuals present at thescene of the accident, she decided to return to her police car to obtain paperwork. As she waswalking back to her vehicle traversing the same route that she had previously taken, petitioner"inadvertently" stepped into a pothole in the road and fell to the pavement. Petitioner explainedthat the pothole was oval shaped and a couple of feet wide in diameter. In our view, petitionerhas failed to establish that the condition of the road was not readily observable prior to her fall orthat her fall was caused by anything other than her own inattention or misstep (see Matter of Yurko v DiNapoli, 122AD3d 1047, 1048 [2014]; Matter ofMadaffari v DiNapoli, 104 AD3d 1047, 1047-1048 [2013]; Matter of Piccinini v DiNapoli, 68AD3d 1212, 1212-1213 [2009]; Matter of Coon v New York State Comptroller, 30 AD3d 884, 885[2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]; compare Matter of Pratt v Regan, 68 NY2d746, 747-748 [1986]).

Turning to the incident of February 27, 2013, petitioner testified that, while at her computerworkstation desk, she was seated in her chair when one of its wheels got stuck in an elongatedopening in the floor surface that was approximately eight inches in length and 11/2inches deep. As a result, her chair started to tip causing her to wrench her back in an effort toavoid a fall to the floor. Petitioner acknowledged that she was generally aware of the floor'scondition, and she failed to otherwise establish that the condition of the floor in her desk areawas not readily observable and apparent or that this incident was caused by anything other thanher own lack of attention and misstep (see Matter of Quartucio v DiNapoli, 110 AD3d 1336, 1337-1338[2013]; Matter of Robinson vDiNapoli, 56 AD3d 943, 944 [2008]; Matter of O'Brien v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 937,938 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 708 [2009]; Matter of Brennan v New York State & Local Empls. RetirementSys., 50 AD3d 1374, 1375-1376 [2008]; compare Matter of Meyer v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d1122, 1123 [2012]). Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports theComptroller's finding that petitioner's injuries from the two incidents in question occurred as theresult of her own misstep or inattention, and we therefore find no basis in the record before us todisturb the determination under review.

Garry, J.P., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Footnotes


Footnote *:Petitioner testified that she is nolonger employed as a police officer and receives performance of duty disability retirementbenefits.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.