Matter of Laurino v DiNapoli
2015 NY Slip Op 07327 [132 AD3d 1057]
October 8, 2015
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2015


[*1]
 In the Matter of Helena T. Laurino,Petitioner,
v
Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller,Respondent.

Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains (Ryan K. Allen ofcounsel), for petitioner.

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

Devine, 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 denying petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirementbenefits.

Petitioner, a correction officer, worked in the Regional Medical Unit at FishkillCorrectional Facility. On June 4, 2011, she was stationed at a desk near the recreationarea when an inmate informed her that another inmate was having a seizure. She foundthe inmate walking in a daze and, as she and a nurse slowly lowered him to the floor, hewent limp and started to fall. The inmate did not struggle or strike petitioner while shewas holding on to him; nevertheless, she injured her right shoulder while guiding his fall.As a result of this incident, she filed an application for performance of duty disabilityretirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b. Herapplication was denied on the ground that her injury was not the result of an act of aninmate. Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer agreed and recommended that petitioner'sapplication be denied. Respondent accepted the Hearing Officer's recommendation andissued a final determination denying her benefits. This CPLR article 78 proceedingensued.

Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-b (a) provides forperformance of duty [*2]disability retirement benefits tocorrection officers employed by the Department of Corrections and CommunitySupervision who are unable to perform their job duties "as the natural and proximateresult of an injury, sustained in the performance or discharge of [their] duties by, or as anatural and proximate result of, an act of any inmate." The statute does not specificallydefine an "act of any inmate." The legislative history, however, reveals that "the statutewas clearly intended to compensate correction officers who, because of the risks createdby their 'daily contact with certain persons who are dangerous [and] profoundlyanti-social' . . . become permanently disabled" (Matter of Kaler v DiNapoli, 86AD3d 898, 899 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012], quoting Governor'sMem approving L 1996, ch 722, 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 1943; see Matter of Naughton vDiNapoli, 127 AD3d 137, 140-141 [2015]). In accordance with this intent,courts have construed the language to require that the injuries be caused by directinteraction with an inmate in order to qualify for benefits under the statute (see Matterof Naughton v DiNapoli, 127 AD3d at 139; Matter of Palmateer v DiNapoli, 117 AD3d 1228, 1229[2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014]; Matter of Escalera v Hevesi, 9 AD3d 666, 667 [2004],lvs denied 3 NY3d 608 [2004]).

Petitioner contends that she had direct interaction with the inmate while she waslowering him to the floor during his seizure. However, in analogous circumstances wherea correction officer was injured while assisting an incapacitated inmate during a medicalemergency, we held that the inmate was not "engaged in any act that was a proximatecause of petitioner's . . . injury" (Matter of Esposito v Hevesi, 30 AD3d 667, 668 [2006]).Given the absence of any affirmative act on the part of the inmate here, we perceive nomeaningful distinction to be drawn between this case and Matter of Esposito vHevesi (supra). In view of this, substantial evidence in the record supportsrespondent's denial of petitioner's application on the basis that her injuries were not theresult of an act of an inmate under Retirement and Social Security Law§ 507-b.

Egan Jr., J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


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.