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: Scott BISIANI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered November 23, 2005, which denied petitioner police officer's application to annul respondent Board of Trustees' determination denying petitioner accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner claims that his disabling trip and fall was caused by a crack in the station house floor and a broken wooden bannister that gave way when he grabbed hold of it in an attempt to break the fall. Where, as here, the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits is the result of a tie vote by the Board of Trustees, such denial can be annulled only if the applicant is entitled to accidental disability benefits as a matter of law (Matter of McCambridge v. McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563, 568, 479 N.Y.S.2d 171, 468 N.E.2d 9 [1984] ). Given the various accounts of the incident that do not unvaryingly mention a crack in the floor, the absence of any evidence as to the exact size and location of the crack, and the absence of any work or repair order for the floor, it cannot be said as a matter of law that petitioner's trip and fall was caused by a crack in the floor rather than his own misstep (see Matter of Starnella v. Bratton, 92 N.Y.2d 836, 839, 677 N.Y.S.2d 62, 699 N.E.2d 421 [1998]; Matter of Doyle v. Kelly, 8 A.D.3d 125, 779 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2004] ). Nor can it be said as a matter of law that a broken bannister contributed to petitioner's fall. The Board was entitled to credit contemporaneous accounts that did not mention a defective bannister as a factor in petitioner's fall and discredit the subsequent affidavits that did (see Matter of Gray v. Kerik, 15 A.D.3d 275, 791 N.Y.S.2d 9 [2005] ). Certainly, the subsequent statements are not, as a matter of law, more reliable than the earlier ones (see Matter of Morgan v. Kerik, 305 A.D.2d 288, 760 N.Y.S.2d 34 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 507, 776 N.Y.S.2d 222, 808 N.E.2d 358 [2004] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 05, 2007
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)