IN RE: Israel S. LOPEZ (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

In April 2021, petitioner filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits contending that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as the result of an incident that occurred in January 2015.  At the time of the incident, petitioner was a police detective assigned to an executive protection detail.  In that capacity, petitioner would provide security services for high-ranking municipal officials.  The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System denied the application upon the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363.  Following a hearing and redetermination in November 2022,¹ the Hearing Officer upheld the denial and, upon administrative review, respondent affirmed.  Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent's determination.

We confirm.  “As the applicant, petitioner bore the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and respondent's determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hamblin v. DiNapoli, 229 A.D.3d 922, 923, 213 N.Y.S.3d 570 [3d Dept. 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Matter of Cuppek v. DiNapoli, 238 A.D.3d 1238, 1238, 235 N.Y.S.3d 216 [3d Dept. 2025];  Matter of Croly v. New York State Comptroller, 236 A.D.3d 1277, 1277–1278, 231 N.Y.S.3d 667 [3d Dept. 2025]).  “An accident in this context means a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” (Matter of Stefanik v. Gardner, 236 A.D.3d 75, 80, 226 N.Y.S.3d 641 [3d Dept. 2025] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Matter of Buonora v. Gardner, 235 A.D.3d 1056, 1057, 226 N.Y.S.3d 670 [3d Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 907, 2025 WL 1700909 [2025];  Matter of Buddenhagen v. DiNapoli, 224 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 205 N.Y.S.3d 574 [3d Dept. 2024]).  “Thus, 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” (Matter of McQuade v. New York State Comptroller, 236 A.D.3d 1290, 1291, 231 N.Y.S.3d 670 [3d Dept. 2025] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Matter of Croly v. New York State Comptroller, 236 A.D.3d at 1278, 231 N.Y.S.3d 667;  Matter of Hamblin v. DiNapoli, 229 A.D.3d at 923, 213 N.Y.S.3d 570).

Petitioner testified that, on the day in question, he was assigned to the executive protection detail and, in that capacity, had transported a county executive to various meetings.  At the end of the day, petitioner returned the departmental vehicle he was using to the employer's parking lot and, as he exited the vehicle, he experienced chest pains.  Petitioner reported this incident to his supervisor and drove himself to a local emergency room, where he was evaluated and discharged with a diagnosis of chest pain and palpitations.  Petitioner, who had been diagnosed with sarcoidosis in 2015, testified that he subsequently was diagnosed with cardiac sarcoidosis in 2021.

When questioned regarding his activities on the day in question, petitioner testified that he did not recall anything significant occurring, and the record fails to disclose that petitioner engaged in any particularly stressful or strenuous activity prior to exiting his vehicle.  To the extent that petitioner suggests that the chest pain he experienced – in and of itself – was sudden and unexpected and, hence, qualified as a precipitating accidental event, we disagree (cf.  Matter of Warshawsky v. DiNapoli, 73 A.D.3d 1357, 1360, 901 N.Y.S.2d 415 [3d Dept. 2010]).  Further, “the risks associated with exiting a police car are inherent in the performance of [petitioner's] routine duties, and petitioner has offered no evidence indicating that his exit was accompanied by anything out of the ordinary” (Matter of Ashley v. DiNapoli, 97 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 949 N.Y.S.2d 526 [3d Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).  Under these circumstances, respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits will not be disturbed (see id.;  see generally Matter of Hamblin v. DiNapoli, 229 A.D.3d at 923–924, 213 N.Y.S.3d 570;  Matter of Bornholz v. DiNapoli, 225 A.D.3d 1079, 1081–1082, 207 N.Y.S.3d 254 [3d Dept. 2024]).  Petitioner's remaining arguments on this point, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the time of the hearing, petitioner was working for the employer as a tactical flight officer.

McShan, J.

Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.