MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent denying petitioners application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a Suffolk County police officer for 20 years, was injured while guarding an arrestee awaiting surgery at the hospital in August 2014. The injury occurred while petitioner was putting on hospital scrubs in order to accompany the arrestee into the operating room, exacerbating a left shoulder condition. Petitioners subsequent application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied upon the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer upheld the denial, finding, among other things, that the incident occurred in the context of petitioners ordinary employment duties and the resulting injury was the product of a risk inherent in the performance of such duties.
1
Respondent adopted the Hearing Officers findings of fact and conclusions of law, and petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that determination.
We confirm. As the applicant, it was petitioners burden to establish that his disability was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and respondents determination on that point will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Parry v. New York State Comptroller, 187 A.D.3d 1303, 1304, 133 N.Y.S.3d 100 [2020]; Matter of Lewis v. New York State Comptroller, 176 A.D.3d 1545, 1546, 111 N.Y.S.3d 459 [2019]). An accident is “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” (Matter of Kelly v. DiNapoli, 30 N.Y.3d 674, 681, 70 N.Y.S.3d 881, 94 N.E.3d 444 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Parry v. New York State Comptroller, 187 A.D.3d at 1304, 133 N.Y.S.3d 100). Thus, “an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury” (Matter of Kelly v. DiNapoli, 30 N.Y.3d at 681, 70 N.Y.S.3d 881, 94 N.E.3d 444 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Parry v. New York State Comptroller, 187 A.D.3d at 1304, 133 N.Y.S.3d 100; Matter of Bell v. DiNapoli, 168 A.D.3d 1206, 1207, 91 N.Y.S.3d 598 [2019]). The determination of whether an accident has occurred focuses on “the precipitating cause of the injury, rather than on the petitioners job assignment” (Matter of Kelly v. DiNapoli, 30 N.Y.3d at 682, 70 N.Y.S.3d 881, 94 N.E.3d 444 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
Petitioner testified that he was initially called in to guard the arrestee in the emergency room and, when the arrestee was taken into surgery, a nurse relayed that the surgeons had requested his presence in the operating room and provided scrubs for him to put on over his uniform. He recounted that, while hurrying to pull the scrub bootie over one of his boots, the bootie ripped and his left arm “flew back,” causing injury to the collarbone area of his left shoulder. Petitioner acknowledged that it was standard procedure for police officers to guard prisoners during medical examinations and testing procedures. Contrary to petitioners claim, the Hearing Officer took note of petitioners differing description of the incident provided in the contemporaneous incident report, in which he reported feeling the onset of pain while putting on scrub pants. Given the foregoing, the Hearing Officer and respondent rationally concluded that, under either description of the incident,
2
at the time of his injury, petitioner was acting within the scope of his ordinary job duties as a police officer, namely, guarding prisoners undergoing medical treatment, and that there was no sudden, unexpected event that was not an inherent risk thereof (see Matter of Kelly v. DiNapoli, 30 N.Y.3d at 681, 70 N.Y.S.3d 881, 94 N.E.3d 444; Matter of Parry v. New York State Comptroller, 187 A.D.3d at 1305, 133 N.Y.S.3d 100). As respondents determination that petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that his injuries resulted from an accident was supported by substantial evidence in the record, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Parry v. New York State Comptroller, 187 A.D.3d at 1305, 133 N.Y.S.3d 100; Matter of Gilden v. DiNapoli, 183 A.D.3d 1100, 1102–1103, 123 N.Y.S.3d 731 [2020]; Matter of Lewis v. New York State Comptroller, 176 A.D.3d at 1546, 111 N.Y.S.3d 459; Matter of Buckshaw v. DiNapoli, 169 A.D.3d 1139, 1141, 93 N.Y.S.3d 722 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 904, 2019 WL 2041641 [2019]). We have examined petitioners remaining contentions and determined that they lack merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Petitioner retired in December 2018 and received performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
2
. Although the Hearing Officer did not make an express credibility finding regarding petitioners inconsistent descriptions of the incident provided in his incident report and testimony, it appears that petitioners earlier description was credited and found to be more reliable over his later testimonial account. The discrepancy between petitioners descriptions created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer and, ultimately, respondent to resolve (see Matter of Piatti v. DiNapoli, 187 A.D.3d 1274, 1276, 131 N.Y.S.3d 436 [2020]; Matter of Buckshaw v. DiNapoli, 169 A.D.3d 1139, 1141, 93 N.Y.S.3d 722 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 904, 2019 WL 2041641 [2019]). In any event, neither description constituted an accident.
Aarons, J.
Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.