The Board of Trustees of the New York City Police Pension Fund, Article II, [Trustees] rejected Petitioner's application for an accidental disability retirement [ADR] and approved Petitioner for an ordinary disability retirement [ODR] retirement benefit by a tie-vote. Petitioner initiated a CPLR appeal challenging the Fund's decision. The Appellate Division sustained the Fund's determination, explaining the Petitioner "has not met her burden of establishing that the disability was causally connected to a line-of-duty accident".
The court noted that the denial of Petitioner's application for ADR was the result of a tie vote. Citing Matter Doorley v Kelly, 106 AD3d 554, the Appellate Division observed that a tie vote by the Trustees may only be set aside on judicial review if the court concludes that the applicant is entitled to the increased benefits as a matter of law based on the record because "the disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident".
The court further opined that not every line of duty injury will support an award of ADR, as "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".
In the words of the Appellate Division, "for ADR benefits to apply, there must be a precipitating accidental event, that is, a fortuitous, unexpected event". Observing that Petitioner testified that she had worked "in the subject intersection several times before without incident, that she had previously been made aware of the condition of the road by pedestrian complaints, and that on the day of her injury, she had been in the intersection at least 30 minutes before she took a misstep," the court concluded "it cannot be said that as a matter of law, [Petitioner's] fall was an unexpected and unforeseeable accident.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.