From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Kazmierczak v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 9, 1998
252 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 9, 1998


In January 1994, petitioner was injured while checking runway conditions during the course of his employment as a senior groundsperson of the Greater Buffalo International Airport. The weather conditions were severe; it was 14 degrees with a wind chill temperature of 17 degrees below zero and it was snowing, with winds up to 23 miles per hour. Approximately 15 inches of snow and ice had accumulated on the ground. While getting into a pickup truck owned by the airport, petitioner slipped and twisted his back. Petitioner's injuries have apparently prevented his return to work. After petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied, a hearing ensued. The Hearing Officer found that the incident did not constitute an "accident" within the definition of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 Retire. Soc. Sec.. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was subsequently transferred to this Court, in which he challenges the determination.

We confirm. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that petitioner's injuries were not caused by an "accident" as defined by Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 Retire. Soc. Sec. ( see, Matter of Lisa v. McCall, 234 A.D.2d 703; Matter of Keller v. Regan, 212 A.D.2d 856). In our view, the record supports the conclusion that the slip occurred as a result of petitioner's misstep and not because of any "`sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary'" occurrence ( Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012, quoting Johnson Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 6 A.D.2d 97, 100, affd 7 N.Y.2d 222). While he was working the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift on the evening of the incident, petitioner was aware that it had been snowing for approximately 24 hours and that a substantial amount of snow and ice had accumulated. He also knew that in such weather conditions, snow would accumulate on the exterior part of the truck that he would routinely step upon to get into the truck. In our view, this evidence supports the conclusion that petitioner's injury was not a result of a sudden or unexpected "accident" and that respondent Comptroller properly denied petitioner's claim for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Kazmierczak v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 9, 1998
252 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Kazmierczak v. McCall

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRANCIS KAZMIERCZAK, Petitioner, v. H. CARL McCALL, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 9, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 398

Citing Cases

Matter of Vecchi v. St. Loc. Emp. Ret. Sys

Petitioner, a school bus driver/cleaner, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits alleging that…

Matter of Van Roten v. McCall

We disagree. "`[A]n injury that occurs without an unexpected event, as the result of activity undertaken in…