From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lang v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2012
101 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-20

In re Jean LANG, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Jean Lang, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Keith M. Snow of counsel), for respondents.


Jean Lang, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Keith M. Snow of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 6, 2012, denying the petition to annul respondents' denial, by virtue of a tie vote of respondent Board of Trustees, of petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that her injury was the result of an accident, i.e., a sudden, unexpected, out of the ordinary event, rather than a misstep during the routine performance of her job ( see Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 [1982];Matter of Doyle v. Kelly, 8 A.D.3d 125, 779 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2004] ). She was injured when she tripped over computer wires extending across the threshold of the doorway between the precinct's female supervisors' locker room and the bathroom. In statements made contemporaneously with the accident, she indicated that the wires were “exposed.” Two years later, she submitted a statement indicating that the wires had initially been secured to the floor with duct tape and that the tape was removed on the day she fell. Respondents were entitled to credit petitioner's contemporaneous account and reject her more recent statement that the condition of the wires changed on the day of the accident ( see Matter of Bisiani v. Kelly, 39 A.D.3d 261, 833 N.Y.S.2d 72 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Respondents reasonably inferred that, since the wires had been in place for several months before petitioner's fall, she must have been aware of them and routinely stepped over them.

ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lang v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2012
101 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Lang v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In re Jean LANG, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, etc., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 20, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8788
955 N.Y.S.2d 510

Citing Cases

Torres v. Kelly

On appeal, respondents do not challenge the court's finding that the October 2003 incident caused…

McCartan v. Shea

Petitioner failed to establish, as a matter of law, that her trip and fall on a piece of gym equipment lying…