Court Opinion

ID: 9950822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:19.035873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:50.840700
License: Public Domain

Hendrick v Sewell
               2024 NY Slip Op 30762(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152569/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 152569/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          152569/2022
                TYLER HENDRICK,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        03/04/20241
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                KEECHANT SEWELL, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
                THE POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE II, NEW YORK                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
                CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF NEW YORK                                             MOTION

                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16,
            17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       ARTICLE 78                       .

                      The petition to annul respondents’ determination that petitioner is not entitled to Accident

            Disability Retirement (“ADR”) is denied.

            Background

                      Petitioner began working for the NYPD in 2007. He claims that on February 29, 2020

            while working as a police officer, he suffered a serious wrist injury after responding to a 911

            call. He insists that he slipped while stepping into his police SUV. Petitioner stepped up to open

            the passenger side door of the SUV and then stepped down with his right foot (apparently, a

            person getting into this car has to step up to open the door and then step back down, only to step

            back up to finally get into the car). Petitioner alleges that when he stepped down, he landed on

            bagged ice that was spilled in the roadway and was in between his vehicle and the sidewalk,

            1
              The Court recognizes that this proceeding has been pending for a long time before different judges. Although this
            proceeding was only assigned to this part on March 4, 2024, the Court apologizes, on behalf of the court system, for
            the lengthy delay in the resolution of the instant petition.
                152569/2022 HENDRICK, TYLER vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                               Page 1 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152569/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            which caused him to reach for door handle of the car and injure his wrist. He contends that the

            injury to his wrist required surgery, which he underwent in July 2020.

                   In January 2021, he applied for ADR. The Medical Board, in a decision dated July 9,

            2021, approved his request for ADR (NYSCEF Doc. No. 11). The matter then went before the

            Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund (the “Board of Trustees”) in November 2021,

            which tabled the matter (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12). At an executive session in December 2021, the

            Board of Trustees again tabled the matter after discussing whether or not the incident was

            unexpected (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13). At the next session on January 12, 2022, the Board of

            Trustees finally voted and the result was a 6-6 tie, meaning that petitioner received only Ordinary

            Disability Retirement (“ODR”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14).

                   A member of the voting bloc who voted for ODR, noted that “we remain unconvinced

            that this was not an open and obvious condition and that this was sudden given that they got out

            of the vehicle and it was pretty obvious” (id. at 16 of 17).

                   Petitioner admits that is unknown whether or not the ice was there when he responded to

            the incident; petitioner was directed to go to a Taco Bell to address a call about a disruptive

            individual. He claims that a police officer need not be aware of every possible nuisance or

            defective condition while responding to an emergency.

                   In opposition, respondents contend that the issue here is whether the injury was

            “accidental.” They acknowledge that the Medical Board granted petitioner ADR but claims that

            the Board of Trustees rationally found that the disabling injury was not the result of an

            unexpected event. Respondents emphasize that this was an open and obvious condition that

            petitioner failed to observe.

             152569/2022 HENDRICK, TYLER vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 152569/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            Discussion

                    In an article 78 proceeding, “the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis and

            was not arbitrary and capricious” (Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d

            587 [2013] [internal quotations and citation omitted]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious

            when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (id.). “If the determination

            has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable”

            (id.). “Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to

            the facts” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale

            & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231, 356 NYS2d 833 [1974]).

                    “Applying for ADR involves a two step process. Initially, the pension fund’s Medical

            Board conducts a physical examination, interviews the applicant, and reviews the submitted

            evidence, before submitting a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. In the second step, the

            Board of Trustees votes to either grant or deny ADR benefits” (Stavropoulos v Bratton, 148

            AD3d 449, 450, 50 NYS3d 2 [1st Dept 2017]).

                    “Not every line of duty injury will result in an award of ADR. When the denial of ADR

            benefits to a police officer is the result of a tie vote by the Board of Trustees, this Court is

            required to uphold the denial unless it can be determined as a matter of law on the record that the

            disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident” (Pastalove v Kelly,

            120 AD3d 419, 420, 991 NYS2d 39 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

                    As the parties make clear, this is not a situation in which there is a dispute about the

            cause of petitioner’s disabling injury. Rather, the primary issue here is where the incident in

            question was an accident for purposes of an ADR application. “In the context of ADR benefits,

            the Court of Appeals has defined an accident as a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out

             152569/2022 HENDRICK, TYLER vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                  Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                                INDEX NO. 152569/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            of the ordinary, and injurious in impact, while 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” (id.).

                      The Court denies the petition as the Board of Trustees rationally concluded that

            petitioner’s injury was not caused by a sudden or unexpected event. Not every on-the-job injury

            qualifies for ADR. The Appellate Division, First Department has found that a police officer who

            injured his knee while stepping out of his patrol car was not an accident for purposes of granting

            ADR (Gray v Kerik, 15 AD3d 275, 791 NYS2d 9 [1st Dept 2005]). And, of course, responding

            to a 911 call is a normal risk inherent in police work (Pastalove, 120 AD3d at 421).

                      And, here, the fact is that the Board of Trustees concluded that the condition that caused

            petitioner’s incident was open and obvious such that petitioner had ample opportunity to see and

            avoid the ice. The Court observes that the Third Department2 has found that an officer who

            slipped and fell on ice was not entitled to receive ADR, even though he claimed not to see it

            before he fell (Matter of Ruggiero v DiNapoli, 85 AD3d 1282, 1283, 924 NYS2d 221 [3d Dept

            2011]). It also found that a firefighter who slipped on ice that formed while he was fighting a fire

            did not constitute an accident for ADR purposes (Matter of Campbell v DiNapoli, 56 AD3d 940,

            941, 867 NYS2d 650 [3d Dept 2008]). The key factor for this Court is that the precipitating

            cause of the incident was not sudden or unexpected; that petitioner contends he did not notice the

            ice laying on the ground does not make it an accident for purposes of ADR.

            2
              The Court recognizes that the procedural posture of that case in the Third Department is a bit different as it
            involved a question of substantial evidence after a hearing, whereas no such hearing was held in connection with this
            type of ADR application.
                152569/2022 HENDRICK, TYLER vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                          Page 4 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                                 4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152569/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            Summary

                    This Court emphasizes that it cannot disturb the Board of Trustees’ decision simply

            because it disagrees with the Board of Trustees. Rather, in order to be irrational, the record must

            show as a matter of law that this was a service-related accident and here, the record does not

            show that. While it is completely understandable that petitioner disagrees with the Board of

            Trustee’s determination via their 6-6 tie vote, the Court sees no basis to disturb that conclusion

            on this record.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

            disbursements.

                    3/11/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      DATE                                                      ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED          X   DENIED    GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             152569/2022 HENDRICK, TYLER vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                                Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]