| Matter of Martino v County of Albany |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00153 [47 AD3d 1052] |
| January 10, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher J. Martino, Petitioner, v County ofAlbany et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Hiscock & Barclay, L.L.P., Albany (Michael J. Smith of counsel), for respondents.
Spain, 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 AlbanyCounty Sheriff which denied petitioner's application for General Municipal Law § 207-cbenefits.
Petitioner, a correction officer with the Albany County Sheriff's Department since 1993, wasinjured on the morning of June 19, 2006 during his shift at the visitor observation booth in thevisitation area of the Albany County Correctional Facility. After several visitors complainedabout an odor, petitioner removed a full bag of garbage from a garbage can located within hiswork station and placed it outside the visitation area. In the process, he sustained acute lowerback strain and sought immediate medical assistance. He was absent from work forapproximately three weeks, his uncontroverted claim for workers' compensation benefits wasestablished, and he also applied for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.After a hearing, the parties stipulated to the issues and relevant facts. The Hearing Officer issueda report recommending that petitioner's application be denied because, at the time he sustainedthis injury, he was engaged in activities outside the scope of his assigned duties as a correctionofficer. Respondent Albany County Sheriff adopted the determination, and Supreme Courttransferred petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding to this Court.[*2]
General Municipal Law § 207-c, as relevant here,provides correction officers with benefits, including full wages, where they are injured "in theperformance of [their] duties" (General Municipal Law § 207-c [1]). To be eligible forsection 207-c benefits, an officer needs to prove a "direct causal relationship between job dutiesand the resulting illness or injury" (Matter of White v County of Cortland, 97 NY2d 336,340 [2002]; accord Matter of Theroux vReilly, 1 NY3d 232, 243-244 [2003]), without regard to "whether the specificinjury-causing activity was one entailing the 'heightened risk' " posed to correction officers(Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d at 241; see Matter of Trifaro v Town of Colonie, 31 AD3d 821, 822[2006]). The term "duties" in section 207-c "encompasses the full range of a covered employee'sjob duties" (Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d at 244).
Here, substantial evidence supports the determination that, under the circumstances,petitioner's injury resulting from his removal of a bag of garbage was not causally related to hisrange of duties as a correction officer. The record reflects that petitioner's assigned duties as acorrection officer did not include garbage removal, a duty assigned to maintenance workers.While the Sheriff's General Order on Rules of Conduct imposed a general duty on all employees"to assist in keeping the work area of their assigned unit and all equipment in a neat, clean andsanitary condition," we find rational the conclusion that petitioner's removal of malodorousgarbage did not fall under that general duty, given that "[t]here was no evidence of an immediateneed to move the bag of garbage before the maintenance crew arrived." While the HearingOfficer recognized that there could be circumstances in which the removal of a bag ofmalodorous garbage could be considered within the full range of a correction officer's duties forpurposes of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, the conclusion that it did not in thiscase is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed. The remaining contentionslack merit.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinationis confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.