From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 11, 1982
57 N.Y.2d 1010 (N.Y. 1982)

Summary

In Lichtenstein v. Bd. of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 (1982), the Court of Appeals of New York noted that the term "accident" is not specifically defined in the Code.

Summary of this case from Flannelly v. Bd. of Trustees of N.Y.C. Police

Opinion

Argued October 14, 1982

Decided November 11, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, HELEN E. FREEDMAN, J.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel ( Paul T. Rephen and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant.

Louis L. Stutman for respondent.

Murray A. Gordon and John Mills for Vincent J. Bollon and others, amici curiae. Richard A. Dienst and Peter A. Schwartz for Captains Endowment Association and others, amici curiae.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the determination of respondent Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the Police Department of the City of New York should be reinstated.

In order to obtain accidental disability retirement, petitioner must establish that he suffered physical or mental incapacitation "as a natural and proximate result of an accidental injury received in * * * city-service" (Administrative Code of City of New York, § B18-43.0). The legislative history of the statute indicates that not every line-of-duty injury will support an award of accidental disability retirement. The express requirement that the employee establish that the line-of-duty injury be incurred as the result of an accident was added in 1940 (see Uniformed Firefighters Assn., Local 94, IAFF, AFL-CIO v Beekman, 52 N.Y.2d 463). Prior to that time, line-of-duty retirement benefits were payable solely upon a determination that the disability was employment related (L 1920, ch 427, § 1, Administrative Code, §§ B18-4.0, B19-4.0).

Although the term "accident" is not specifically defined by the statute, we adopt the commonsense definition of a "sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact" ( Johnson Corp. v Indemnity Ins. Co. of North Amer., 6 A.D.2d 97, 100, affd 7 N.Y.2d 222). (According to this definition, an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury within the meaning of section B18-43.0) (see, e.g., Retirement and Social Security Law, § 363; Matter of Covel v New York State Employees' Retirement System, 84 A.D.2d 902, mot for lv to app den 55 N.Y.2d 606; Matter of Panek v Regan, 81 A.D.2d 738). So, too, the occurrence in question on this appeal involving a back injury sustained while leaning over the hood of an automobile in order to place a summons on the vehicle, cannot be deemed an accidental injury.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 11, 1982
57 N.Y.2d 1010 (N.Y. 1982)

In Lichtenstein v. Bd. of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 (1982), the Court of Appeals of New York noted that the term "accident" is not specifically defined in the Code.

Summary of this case from Flannelly v. Bd. of Trustees of N.Y.C. Police

explaining that an "accident" must be "out of the ordinary"

Summary of this case from Rizzo v. DiNapoli

In Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees (57 N.Y.2d 1010), we adopted a "commonsense definition" of accident: a "sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact" (id., at 1012).

Summary of this case from Matter of Starnella v. Bratton

In 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), the Court of Appeals adopted a "commonsense definition" of an "accident" as a "sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary and injurious in impact" (id. at 1012, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Summary of this case from Stancarone v. DiNapoli

In 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, 1012), the Court of Appeals defined the term "accident" to exclude "an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties".

Summary of this case from Matter of McManus v. McGuire

In Lichtenstein v Bd. of Trs., 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012 (1982), the Court of Appeals held that "although the term 'accident' is not specifically defined by statute, we adopt the commonsense definition of a 'sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact'" (quoting Johnson Corp. v Indemnity Ins. Co. of North Amer., 6 A.D.2d 97, 100, affd 7 N.Y.2d 222 [1958]; see Kenny v DiNapoli, 11 N.Y.3d 873, 874 [2008]).

Summary of this case from Crews v. The N.Y.C. Emps. Ret. Sys.

In Lichtenstein, the Court of Appeals adopted what it calls the "commonsense definition" of the word "accident", citing to Johnson Corp v Indemnity Ins. Co. Of North Amer. (6 AD2d 97 [1st Dept 1958], aff'd 7 NY2d 222), a case involving a claim for insurance coverage arising from accidental injuries.

Summary of this case from In Matter of Lang v. Kelly

In Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund (57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012), the Court of Appeals adopted a commonsense definition of accident, as a "`sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact'".

Summary of this case from Archer v. Ward

In Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund (57 N.Y.2d 1010), the Court of Appeals reversed a finding of accidental disability where a police officer sustained a disabling back injury by leaning over the hood of a car to affix a traffic violation summons on the windshield.

Summary of this case from Matter of Rutyna v. Police Dept
Case details for

Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BARRY J. LICHTENSTEIN, Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 11, 1982

Citations

57 N.Y.2d 1010 (N.Y. 1982)
457 N.Y.S.2d 472
443 N.E.2d 946

Citing Cases

Rizzo v. DiNapoli

MEMORANDUM. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, judgment affirmed, with costs.…

Rizzo v. DiNapoli

An" 'injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance…