ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

April 15, 2016

The so-called "Firefighter Rule" bars police officer from suing his or her employer or a coworker for injuries suffered while on duty



The so-called "Firefighter Rule" bars police officer from suing his or her employer or a coworker for injuries suffered while on duty
Voss v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 02586, Appellate Division, First Department

The “Firefighter Rule,” which has been extended to apply to police officers, bars firefighters and police officers from recovering damages from their employer for line of duty injuries that occur or result from the performance of the duties of firefighter or police officer.

New York City Police Officer Roberta Voss, who had not yet completed her tour of duty, was injured when another police officer “grabbed her from behind and demonstrated a take-down maneuver.” Voss sued the City alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law and the Penal Law. Supreme Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Voss’ complaint and Voss appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explained the Voss’ common-law negligence claim is barred by the so-called "Firefighter Rule" because she was injured by a fellow officer while both were on duty. Further, as the count noted in Alcalde v Riley, 73 AD3d 1101, GML §205-a “largely abolished the former so-called ‘firefighter's rule’ by giving firefighters [and police officers] a cause of action in negligence for injuries suffered while in the line of duty except as to actions against municipal employers and fellow workers.”

In Voss’ situation the Appellate Division said “[b]ecause it is asserted against her employer (and her fellow officer), [Voss'] common-law negligence claim can only be based on the statutory right of action set out in General Municipal Law §205-e.
Although a §205-e claim may be predicated upon an alleged violation of Labor Law §27-a,* the Appellate Division concluded that Voss’ injury was not the type of workplace injury contemplated by Labor Law §27-a.

Addressing Voss’ complaint of alleged Penal Law violations, the court observer that there was no evidence that any criminal charges were brought against the fellow officer whose actions resulted in Voss’ injury and she offered no evidence that the officer's conduct was intentional, criminally reckless, or criminally negligent, so as to rebut the presumption that the Penal Law was not violated.

* §27-a of the State’s Labor Law addresses “Safety  and  health  standards  for  public  employees.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02586.htm
_________________

The Disability Benefits E-book: - This e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on: http://booklocker.com/3916.html
_________________ 



CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com