IN RE: Eric LINDH (2021)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.2021-11-18No. 532672

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court confirmed the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits and dismissed the petition because substantial evidence supported the finding that the sergeant was not performing his job duties when he intentionally punched the door.

A police sergeant sought accidental disability retirement benefits after punching a metal door during a work conversation that became contentious. The sergeant had been performing a job duty—informing subordinates of a new departmental policy—when the incident occurred, but his violent outburst was neither necessary nor permissible as part of that duty. The respondent denied the benefits application, and a hearing officer upheld that denial.

The court examined whether the applicant met the legal standard for accidental disability benefits, which requires demonstrating that incapacity resulted naturally and directly from an accident sustained while performing job duties. The court found that although the sergeant was initially engaged in job-related work, his intentional punch was a separate act of violence unconnected to accomplishing his duties. Because the punch occurred outside the scope of job duties, the court did not need to address whether it qualified as an accident under the relevant statute.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an employee performing job duties remains 'in service' when committing an act of violence unrelated to those duties
Whether an intentional punch qualifies as an 'accident' under disability retirement law
Standard of review for determinations regarding accidental disability benefits

Procedural posture

The case was transferred to the appellate court by the Supreme Court under CPLR article 78 to review the respondent's denial of the petitioner's accidental disability retirement benefits application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

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 sergeant with the Village of Mamaroneck Police Department, applied for, as is relevant here, accidental disability retirement benefits. The application alleged that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his duties due to conditions arising out of several events, including a 2013 incident in which he punched a door during a contentious and stressful work-related conversation with his subordinates. Following the initial denial of the application, petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination and limited his arguments to the 2013 incident. The Hearing Officer upheld the denial after that hearing, finding that the 2013 incident lacked a connection to petitioners duties and was not, in any event, an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Respondents designee adopted the Hearing Officers findings of fact and conclusions of law, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. In order to be entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits, an applicant bears the burden of showing that his or her “incapacitation from the performance of his [or her] duties was the natural and proximate result of an accident or a disability that was sustained in such service” (Matter of Verille v. Gardner, 177 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 112 N.Y.S.3d 324 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Retirement and Social Security Law § 363[a][1]; Matter of Arroyo v. DiNapoli, 195 A.D.3d 1290, 1291, 151 N.Y.S.3d 198 [2021]). An applicant is deemed to be in service if “he or she was performing job duties at the time of the injury” (Matter of Hoehn v. New York State Comptroller, 122 A.D.3d 984, 985, 995 N.Y.S.2d 826 [2014]; accord Matter of Arroyo v. DiNapoli, 195 A.D.3d at 1291, 151 N.Y.S.3d 198). Respondent is vested with the authority to determine whether an accidental injury was sustained while in service, and that determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Arroyo v. DiNapoli, 195 A.D.3d at 1291, 151 N.Y.S.3d 198; Matter of Gilden v. DiNapoli, 183 A.D.3d 1100, 1102, 123 N.Y.S.3d 731 [2020]).

Petitioner was performing one of his job duties by informing his subordinates about a new departmental policy that they would be expected to follow. However, his display of violence when the conversation turned contentious was neither necessary nor permissible in accomplishing that task. Indeed, petitioner was disciplined for his outburst and admitted telling his subordinates that it had “nothing to do” with them. Substantial evidence therefore supports respondents finding that petitioner was not performing his job duties when he intentionally punched a metal door (see Matter of Walsh v. Scoppetta, 18 N.Y.3d 850, 852, 939 N.Y.S.2d 280, 962 N.E.2d 771 [2011]; Matter of Sorli v. Levitt, 77 A.D.2d 773, 774, 431 N.Y.S.2d 214 [1980], appeal dismissed 52 N.Y.2d 897, 437 N.Y.S.2d 307, 418 N.E.2d 1326 [1981]). In view of the foregoing, petitioners further challenge to the finding that the 2013 incident was not an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law has been rendered academic (see Matter of Micalizzi v. DiNapoli, 81 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 916 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2011]).

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Aarons, J.

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.