Court Opinion

ID: 9820930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:41:45.930987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:46.670645
License: Public Domain

Sweeny, J.R,
dissents in a memorandum as follows: I dissent.
We are faced with a simple question — was there credible evidence that the incident at issue was not an accident? The answer is yes.
Petitioner was learning to ride a scooter as part of her normal police training in a scooter obstacle course. That the scooter accelerated quickly (petitioner cannot remember why) and hit a metal barrier is unfortunate but clearly within the commonsense expectations of what might occur in such a training exercise.
Where, as here, ADR benefits are denied as a consequence of a tie vote by the Board of Trustees, the denial may be set aside only if it can be determine “as a matter of law” that the officer’s disability was “the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident” (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 60 NY2d 347, 352 [1983]; see also Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139, 145 [1997]). As long as there is any “credible evidence” that the incident was not an accident, the Board’s determination must stand (Meyer, 90 NY2d at 145).
The Court of Appeals has determined that the term “accident” in the applicable statute {see Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252) means a “sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” (Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 57 NY2d 1010, 1012 [1982]).
Here, although the commanding officer’s subjective observation that the incident was “unexpected” is favorable for petitioner, there is credible objective evidence that the incident was not an “accident”* (see Lichtenstein, 57 NY2d at 1012; see also Matter of Becker v Ward, 169 AD2d 453, 453 [1st Dept 1991]). Accordingly, the Board’s determination must stand.
The article 78 court’s decision should be affirmed.

 In fact, the majority can say no more than that the incident “appears” to have been sudden and out of the ordinary.