| Matter of Lundquist v DiNapoli |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03909 [106 AD3d 1439] |
| May 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Laurie D. Lundquist,Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by orderof the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination ofrespondent which denied petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner was a social worker for the New York State Office of Children and FamilyServices. During the course of her employment duties on January 28, 2009, she waswalking to her car when she slipped on ice in the parking lot that was covered by threeinches of snow. She subsequently applied for disability retirement benefits underRetirement and Social Security Law article 15. A Hearing Officer determined thatpetitioner was entitled to receive such benefits, finding that the event in questionconstituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.Respondent thereafter reversed this determination and denied petitioner's application,prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. "The party seeking disability retirement benefits bears the burden ofdemonstrating that the incident causing his or her injury was an accident, which has beendefined for disability purposes as a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of theordinary, and injurious in impact" (Matter of Smith v New York State & LocalRetirement Sys., 103 AD3d [*2]966, 966-967 [2013][internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). An incident does not qualify as anaccident, however, "where the injury results from an expected or foreseeable eventarising during the performance of routine employment duties" (Matter of O'Brien v Hevesi, 12AD3d 895, 896 [2004], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 749 [2005]; accord Matter of Messina v NewYork State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 102 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2013],lv denied 21 NY3d 855 [2013]).
Here, petitioner testified that she could not remember if there was snow or ice on theground when she parked her car on the morning of the day of her injury, but she laterobserved that three inches of snow had fallen during the day and she believed that it wasstill snowing when she walked to her car. As she attempted to get into her car, her footslipped on ice that was underneath the snow. Although petitioner testified that she wasunaware of the ice under the snow, there is substantial evidence in the record that shecould and should have reasonably anticipated the hazard, given her awareness of theinclement weather conditions that day. Accordingly, respondent's determination will notbe disturbed (see Matter of Messina v New York State & Local Employees'Retirement Sys., 102 AD3d at 1069; Matter of Conroy v Murray, 102 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2013];Matter of Ruggiero vDiNapoli, 85 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 711[2011]).
Stein, J.P., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.