Travison v. County of Albany

Full title: In the Matter of SANDRA TRAVISON, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF ALBANY et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2002

291 A.D.2d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

739 N.Y.S.2d 204

Opinion

90448

February 21, 2002.

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 Albany County Sheriff denying petitioner's application for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c.

Christopher H. Gardner, Council 82, AFSCME, Albany (Richard V. Stewart Jr. of counsel), for petitioner.

Hiscock Barclay L.L.P., Albany (Michael J. Smith of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and, Lahtinen, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Crew III, J.

Petitioner, a correction officer employed by the Albany County Sheriff's Department, was injured when she rounded a corner of a tier in the correctional facility operated by respondent County of Albany and slipped and fell on soapy water outside the inmate shower area. At the time of her fall, petitioner was conducting rounds to ensure that all inmates were secured in their cells. Petitioner subsequently applied for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c and, following a hearing, a Hearing Officer recommended that such benefits be granted. Respondent Albany County Sheriff declined to adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation and denied petitioner's application. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination.

The facts of this case are virtually indistinguishable from those contained in our recent decision in Matter of Ertner v. County of Chenango ( 280 A.D.2d 851), where we upheld the denial of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits to a correction officer who fell down the stairs of the local jail while conducting an inspection of the cells. As we held in Ertner, an injury suffered by a correction officer (here, petitioner) while performing rounds or engaging in a routine inspection can hardly be described as "one incurred as the result of a heightened risk peculiar to the performance of the duties of such an officer" (id., at 852). Accordingly, petitioner's application for benefits was properly denied.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

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