Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: John F. MARCHISOTTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, Police Commissioner, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 24, 2008, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents' determination, which denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits by virtue of a tie vote of respondent Board of Trustees (Board), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner sustained a fracture of the middle phalanx of the fourth digit of his left hand when he attempted to unclog an overflowing toilet using a plumber's snake. The Board denied him an accident disability pension on the ground that use of the tool was not among his ordinary job duties, finding that petitioner “knew the proper procedure was to call maintenance for a professional to handle the job,” and concluding that “the incident does not fit the criteria for accidental disability.”
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that the activity in which petitioner was engaged at the time of injury was not “undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties” (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, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 [1982] ). Because the determination of which activities constitute the regular duties of a police officer is a matter within the particular expertise of the Board, its findings are entitled to deference (see Kurcsics v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 451, 459, 426 N.Y.S.2d 454, 403 N.E.2d 159 [1980] ), and because the record contains substantial evidence supporting the Board's findings, its decision must be upheld (see Matter of Salvati v. Eimicke, 72 N.Y.2d 784, 792, 537 N.Y.S.2d 16, 533 N.E.2d 1045 [1988] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 29, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)