| Matter of Traxler v DiNapoli |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03949 [139 AD3d 1314] |
| May 19, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Sheila Traxler,Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, etal., Respondents. |
Sherman, Federman, Sambur & McIntyre, New York City (Sean PatrickRiordan of counsel), for petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), forrespondents.
Clark, 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 Comptroller denying petitioner's request for performance of duty disabilityretirement benefits.
Petitioner, a correction officer, applied for performance of duty disability retirementbenefits alleging that she was permanently incapacitated due to work-related injuries toher neck, back and shoulders, as well as chronic headaches, sustained when a self-closinggate struck her after an inmate accidently let go of it while petitioner was standing in thedoorway. The application was initially denied, and petitioner requested a hearing andredetermination. Following the hearing, the Hearing Officer upheld the denial,concluding that petitioner failed to establish that her injuries were the result of an act ofan inmate. Respondent Comptroller accepted the findings and conclusions of the HearingOfficer, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We annul. Petitioner bore the burden of demonstrating that the incident in which shesustained her injuries was "the natural and proximate result of any act of any inmate"(Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-c [a]; see Matter of Naughton vDiNapoli, 127 AD3d 137, 139 [2015]; Matter of Marello v DiNapoli, 111 AD3d 1052, 1052[2013]). We have repeatedly held [*2]that "the statuterequires that the petitioner demonstrate that his or her injuries were caused by directinteraction with an inmate" (Matter of Naughton v DiNapoli, 127 AD3d at 139[internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Palmateer v DiNapoli, 117 AD3d 1228, 1229[2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014]). Petitioner testified that, in June 2010,she was escorting three inmates to the female clothing room from the visiting room andinstructed the inmates to line up against the wall prior to entering the clothing room.Upon doing so, another correction officer informed petitioner that someone was callingfor her, at which time petitioner turned to see who that person was. At that moment,petitioner heard the gate to the clothing room unlock, and one of the inmates walkedthrough the gate unsupervised and without permission. Petitioner commanded the inmateto stop, but the inmate proceeded through the gate and then released the gate, causing itto close, strike and injure petitioner. Although petitioner did not believe that the inmateintended to injure her and was aware that the self-closing of the gate was a normal andforeseeable result of the process of the unlocking and opening of the gate, the inmate, bydisobeying petitioner's instruction to remain where she was standing, caused the gate toclose and strike petitioner at the moment that the inmate released the gate. Under thesecircumstances, there is no evidentiary basis in the record to conclude that petitioner'sinjuries did not occur "contemporaneously with, and flowed directly, naturally andproximately from, the inmate's" disobedient and affirmative act of opening and thenreleasing the gate (Matter of Naughton v DiNapoli, 127 AD3d at 140;compare Matter of Arcuri v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 291AD2d 621, 622-623 [2002]). Having determined that petitioner's injury was a natural andproximate result of an act of an inmate, the matter must be remitted for furtherproceedings on the issue of the permanency of petitioner's alleged disability (seeRetirement and Social Security Law § 607-c [a]; Matter of Naughton vDiNapoli, 127 AD3d at 141).
Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isannulled, without costs, petition granted to that extent, and matter remitted to respondentComptroller for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.