Walsh v. N.Y.S. Comptroller

• Decision Date: 31 May 2018
• Docket Number: 525316
• Citation: 161 A.D.3d 1495,78 N.Y.S.3d 734
• Parties: In the Matter of Patricia WALSH, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 1495

78 N.Y.S.3d 734

In the Matter of Patricia WALSH, Petitioner,

v.NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER et al., Respondents.

525316

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: April 24, 2018

Decided and Entered: May 31, 2018

Edelstein & Grossman, New York City (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for petitioner.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Devine, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Devine, J.

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 Comptroller denying petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a county correction officer, applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 607–c ) contending that she was permanently disabled due to injuries sustained in March 2012 when the intoxicated inmate that she was transporting stumbled and fell on her. Her application was denied on the ground that her alleged disability "was not the result of an act of any inmate." Following a hearing and redetermination, the Hearing Officer agreed and recommended upholding the denial. Respondent Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's decision with supplemental conclusions of law, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The underlying facts are not in dispute. Petitioner and another correction officer were dispatched to a local courthouse to pick up an unruly inmate, who was either "intoxicated or high on drugs." The inmate was handcuffed and was sufficiently impaired that she could not walk up stairs and needed assistance to navigate the two steps leading into the back of the transport van. When the trio arrived at the local jail, the inmate was unable to stand on her own and required petitioner's assistance to get on her feet. The inmate attempted to exit the transport van on her own, at which point she fell forward and landed on petitioner, who was trying to break the inmate's fall. The inmate thereafter struggled to get off of petitioner but made no attempt to punch or kick petitioner.

Petitioner, as the applicant, bore the burden of demonstrating that her alleged incapacity "was ‘the natural and proximate result of any act of any inmate’ " ( Matter of White v. DiNapoli, 153 A.D.3d 1080, 1081, 61 N.Y.S.3d 171 [2017], quoting Retirement and Social Security Law § 607–c [a]; see Matter of Traxler v. DiNapoli, 139 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 32 N.Y.S.3d 383 [2016] ). The phrase "any act of any inmate" is not statutorily defined ( Retirement and Social Security Law § 607–c [a] ), but we have interpreted this language to require a showing that the claimed injuries "were caused by direct interaction with an inmate" and, further, were "caused by some affirmative act on the part of the inmate" ( Matter of DeMaio v. DiNapoli, 137 A.D.3d 1545, 1546, 30 N.Y.S.3d 343 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Stevens v. DiNapoli, 155 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 64 N.Y.S.3d 768 [2017] ; see Matter of Traxler v. DiNapoli, 139 A.D.3d at 1315, 32 N.Y.S.3d 383). An "affirmative act" need not be intentionally aimed at the officer (see Matter of DeMaio v. DiNapoli, 137 A.D.3d at 1546, 30 N.Y.S.3d 343), but does need to be volitional or disobedient in a manner that proximately causes his or her injury (see Matter of Stevens v. DiNapoli, 155 A.D.3d at 1295–1296, 64 N.Y.S.3d 768; Matter of Traxler v. DiNapoli, 139 A.D.3d at 1315, 32 N.Y.S.3d 383 ; Matter of Laurino v. DiNapoli, 132 A.D.3d 1057, 1058–1059, 17 N.Y.S.3d 792 [2015] ; Matter of Esposito v. Hevesi, 30 A.D.3d 667, 668, 815 N.Y.S.2d 363 [2006] ).

Here, there is no question that petitioner sustained her claimed injuries while attempting to assist the subject inmate in exiting the transport van, i.e., through direct interaction with an inmate. Petitioner's injuries did not, however, "occur[ ] contemporaneously with, and flow[ ] directly, naturally and proximately from, ... [any] disobedient and...