From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Smith v. N.Y. St. L. Retire. Sys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 16, 1993
199 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 16, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.


In March 1981, petitioner, a taxpayer services representative employed by the Department of Taxation and Finance, injured her back while bending over to obtain some forms which were lying on the floor in a box. The resultant disc and nerve injuries were responsible for a steady decline in petitioner's attendance to the point where she ultimately was terminated from her job, effective November 30, 1989, for absences due to a work-related disability. Petitioner then made successive applications for both accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits. Both were denied, the accidental disability request on the ground that the March 1981 incident was not an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Security Law § 63 and the ordinary disability claim because it was untimely, having been filed on June 15, 1990, approximately six months after petitioner's termination date (see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 62). Subsequently, petitioner challenged both determinations and, following a hearing, the Comptroller denied both requests. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was then instituted to review the determination. Supreme Court dismissed that portion of the petition challenging denial of the ordinary disability retirement application, concluding that it was indeed untimely, and transferred to this Court that portion of the petition challenging denial of the accidental disability retirement application because it raised a substantial evidence question.

We confirm. Petitioner concedes that her ordinary disability retirement application was filed more than 90 days after her termination from State service and thus was untimely (Retirement and Social Security Law § 62 [aa]; see, Matter of Champagne v Regan, 191 A.D.2d 895; Matter of Williams v Regan, 145 A.D.2d 884, 885). She argues, however, that respondent is estopped from questioning the timeliness of her application because the delay was predicated upon the erroneous advice given to her by one of respondent's employees. We disagree. While admittedly a narrow exception exists to the general rule precluding the availability of estoppel against a governmental agency in the exercise of its governmental functions for situations involving unusual factual circumstances (see, Matter of Daleview Nursing Home v Axelrod, 62 N.Y.2d 30, 33; Matter of Hamptons Hosp. Med. Ctr. v Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88, 93, n 1; Matter of Schwartz v Crosson, 165 A.D.2d 147, 149), it is well established that erroneous advice given by an employee of a governmental agency is not considered to rise to the level of an unusual circumstance (see, Matter of Champagne v Regan, supra; Matter of Limongelli v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys., 173 A.D.2d 904, 906; Matter of Callace v New York State Employees' Retirement Sys., 140 A.D.2d 756, 757-758, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 806; Matter of Burns v Regan, 87 A.D.2d 944, 946, appeals dismissed 57 N.Y.2d 954).

Regarding the accidental disability retirement application, we find respondent's determination that petitioner did not sustain an accident to be supported by substantial evidence. As evolved, an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 contemplates a sudden fortuitous mischance which is out of the ordinary and injurious in impact (see, Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept., 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012; Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563, 567-568; Matter of Larocco v New York State Comptroller, 186 A.D.2d 342). A fortiori, an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of an act undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties is not an accidental injury (supra). Here, in her application for accidental disability retirement benefits petitioner described her injury as "caused while lifting tax forms out of a carton". Under the foregoing precedent, because such injury emanates from physical exertion occasioned in the performance of petitioner's regular duties and is not accompanied by any unexpected event, the incident does not constitute an accident (see, Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, supra; Matter of Odierno v Regan, 135 A.D.2d 898; Matter of Caramante v Regan, 129 A.D.2d 850, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 611; Matter of Chambers v Regan, 125 A.D.2d 920; Matter of Beachy v Regan, 119 A.D.2d 967, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 604; Matter of Atkins v Regan, 84 A.D.2d 619). Petitioner's testimony that her injury occurred when she slipped and fell against a counter was inconsistent with the description of the accident contained in her application and at variance with the hearing testimony of a co-worker and, as such, merely presented a credibility issue for the Comptroller's determination.

Weiss, P.J., Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Smith v. N.Y. St. L. Retire. Sys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 16, 1993
199 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Smith v. N.Y. St. L. Retire. Sys

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of STEPHANIE SMITH, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
605 N.Y.S.2d 429

Citing Cases

Town of Parishville v. Contore Company, Inc.

Supreme Court's order should be affirmed. In the instant case there were no unusual factual circumstances…

Schwartz v. McCall

pondent did not act arbitrarily in refusing to construe a payment by the County to petitioner on July 3, 1997…