| Matter of Meyer v New York State Comptroller |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01171 [92 AD3d 1122] |
| February 16, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Michele M. Meyer, Petitioner, v New York StateComptroller et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondents.
Garry, 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 Comptrollerwhich denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a police officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits alleging thatshe was injured in three workplace accidents. Petitioner's application was initially denied and shesought a hearing and redetermination. Following the hearing, the Hearing Officer denied theapplication, finding that none of the three incidents constituted accidents within the meaning ofthe Retirement and Social Security Law. Respondent Comptroller accepted the determination ofthe Hearing Officer, and petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.
Petitioner challenges the Comptroller's determination with regard to only two of the threeclaimed incidents. Pursuant to the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is a sudden,fortuitous mischance that is unexpected and not within the "ordinary risks of employment" (Matter of Clarke v Murray, 85 AD3d1536, 1537 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Lucian v McCall, 7AD3d 905, 906 [2004]). An injury occurring as the result of the petitioner's own misstep orinattention does not constitute an [*2]accident so as to qualify forbenefits in accord with the provisions of this law (see Matter of Dilello v DiNapoli, 83 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2011],lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]). As to the incident of October 12, 2006, petitionertestified that she was injured when she tripped over a bunched up portion of an area rug locatedin police headquarters. She failed to establish that the condition of this rug was not readilyobservable or that this incident was caused by anything other than her own lack of attention ormisstep (see Matter of Brennan v NewYork State & Local Empls. Retirement Sys., 50 AD3d 1374, 1376 [2008]; Matter ofLucian v McCall, 7 AD3d at 906). Accordingly, we find that the Comptroller's determinationrelative to this incident is supported by substantial evidence, and we will not disturb it.
As to the incident of March 1, 2006, petitioner testified that while she was sitting in awheeled office chair, the chair slipped out from beneath her when she turned to her left to reachfor something in a file cabinet located behind her. Immediately after she fell, her coworkersdiscovered that the wheel of the chair was bent and defective, and the chair was thereafter sentfor repair. The Hearing Officer made no findings relative to this uncontroverted testimony, whichwas sufficient to establish that the incident resulted from the defective condition of the chair,rather than petitioner's misstep (see Matter of Balduzzi v McCall, 220 AD2d 796, 797[1995]; compare Matter of Clarke v Murray, 85 AD3d at 1537; Matter of Dilello vDiNapoli, 83 AD3d at 1362). While respondents urge that we view the lack of any findingregarding this defect as an implicit adverse credibility determination, we are limited in ourreview to the grounds set forth in the determination, and may not substitute our own findings (see Matter of Mazzotte v DiNapoli, 70AD3d 1233, 1234 [2010]). Accordingly, we do not find the determination as to this incidentsupported by substantial evidence.
Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination ismodified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as determined that the incident of March1, 2006 did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social SecurityLaw; petition granted to that extent and matter remitted to respondent Comptroller for furtherproceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, confirmed.