Court Opinion

ID: 9959908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:11:56.513995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.402164
License: Public Domain

Ciccone v Sewell
               2024 NY Slip Op 31186(U)
                      April 8, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 155142/2023
               Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne
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. 155142/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. NICHOLAS W. MOYNE                              PART                                41M
                                                                      Justice
            ______________,___________________________,___x
                                                                                INDEX NO.            155142/2023
             MEENAWATTI CICCONE,
                                                                                MOTION DATE           06/07/2023
                                                Plaintiff,
                                                                                MOTION SEQ. NO. _ ___;_00-'----1_ __
                                        - V -

             KEECHANT SEWELL, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
             THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND, ARTICLE                       DECISION + ORDER ON
             II                                                                          MOTION

                                                Defendant.
            _____________________ ________ - - - - - - X
                                 ,

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
            23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
            were read on this motion to/for                            ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                   In this article 78 petition, petitioner, Meenawatti Ciccone, is seeking to annul a decision

            by the respondents, Keechant Sewell and The Board of Trustees of the New York City Police

            Pension Fund, Article II, finding that the petitioner, a retired police officer, is only eligible for

            Ordinary Disability Retirement benefits ("ODR") and not Accident Disability Retirement

            benefits ("ADR"). Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether, as a matter of law, the

            petitioner's injury was caused by an "accident" as within the meaning of the New York City

            Administrative Code.

                   Petitioner was injured in the backyard of a private dwelling while she was investigating a

            report of a missing and/or possibly stolen cell phone. The petitioner and her partner were led to

            this location via GPS data, which was provided by the complaining witness, a young woman.

            Neither the petitioner nor her partner had ever been to the location before. After hearing a

            pinging sound, the petitioner began searching the surrounding yard and bushes. While the

             155142/2023 CICCONE, MEENAWATTI vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                               Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                             1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 155142/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            petitioner was canvassing the ground for the phone, she stumbled backwards into a short,

            recessed, two-step stairwell. Photographs of the accident scene, which were submitted to the

            Board of Trustees for review, demonstrate that the staircase into which Officer Ciccone fell was

            flush to the ground and had no guardrail on the left side of the stairwell into which she fell

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 9).

                   At the November 9, 2022, meeting with the Board of Trustees, the petitioner claimed that

            she unexpectedly stepped off a ledge of an exterior two-step staircase and fell from the staircase

            as she was backing up and scanning the area across the staircase for the stolen or missing

            cellphone (NYSCEF Doc. No. l 0). It was also noted that the fall occurred during day light and

            the petitioner had passed by the staircase or may have previously observed it. Therefore, the

            respondents contend that the petitioner did not prove that the fall was a result of an accident.

            Respondents characterize her injuries as having occurred in the course of her ordinary and

            routine duties and were caused by her own negligence or misstep. According to the respondents,

            the petitioner's fall was not so unexpected or out-of-the-ordinary as to constitute an accidental

            injury as a matter of law (see Starnella v Bratton, 92 NY2d 836, 839 [1998]).

                   However, the petitioner contends that her fall was not a result of a mere misstep but

            rather, the staircase was in an unfamiliar location and had no guardrail. As a result, it therefore

            amounted to a large open hole in the ground. Notably, the petitioner was looking down as she

            walked because she was scanning the ground in search of the missing cellphone. The petitioner

            argues that caselaw from the Court of Appeals designates that the circumstance of her fall

            constitutes an "accident" within the meaning of the disability statutes. Accordingly, she is

            entitled to ADR benefits.

             155142/2023 CICCONE, MEENAWATTI vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                            Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001

[* 2]                                                     2 of 6
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 155142/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

                    The material facts are not in dispute and the issue before the court is whether the

            respondents acted irrationally or arbitrarily in concluding that the petitioner's injuries were not

            the result of an "accident" as defined by the applicable Appellate caselaw. As referenced above,

            the Court of Appeals has defined an accident in this context as a, "sudden fortuitous mischance,

            unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact" (see Starnella, 92 NY2d at 839, quoting

            Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010, 1012 [1982]). Additionally, the

            Court of Appeals has expanded on that standard and has held that not every line of duty injury

            constitutes an accident. Instead, if an injury is sustained as the result of the performance of an

            employee's regular, routine, or normal duties, it does not constitute an accident; as opposed to

            injuries sustained by precipitating events which were sudden, unexpected, and not an inherent

            risk of the work ordinarily performed which are accidents (see Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli, 30

            NY3d 674,678 [2018]; Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, 62 NY2d 563, 567-568 [1984]). As

            such, "[i]t is the precipitating cause of the injury, rather than the job assignment at the time, that

            determines entitlement to accidental disability benefits" (Mccambridge, 62 NY2d at 567).

                    In the Starnella case, the Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether an incident

            was an accident for purposes of ADR benefits. In Starnella, the Court held that a petitioner's fall

            down a staircase due to his own misstep was "not so out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected as to

            constitute an accidental injury as a matter of law" (Starnella, 92 NY2d at 839). Respondents

            assert that Starnella is analogous to this matter and therefore requires dismissal of the present

            petition.

                    However, Starnella may be distinguished from the instant case. In Starnella, the injured

            petitioner was fully aware that he was walking down a staircase, and his fall was caused solely

            by his own misstep. Yet in this case, the petitioner was walking backwards in a completely

             155142/2023 CICCONE, MEENAWATTI vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                              Page 3 of6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 155142/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            unfamiliar area when she fell into an unguarded and depressed area while searching the ground

            for a cellphone. To the small extent that the petitioner may be at fault for her accident, it would

            not be due to a misstep but would instead be due to inattention to, or lack of awareness of, her

            surroundings.

                   Inattention and missteps are distinguishable. While the respondents would perhaps argue

            that the distinction is without difference, the caselaw suggests a more nuanced analysis is in

            order. When a person falls down a flight of stairs due to tripping over his or her own feet or by

            misjudging the distance between steps, it is clearly not an accident in this context because there

            is no external precipitating accidental event (see Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148 [3d

            Dept 2018]; see also Starnella, 92 NY2d at 839; ["[a] fall down the stairs as a result of one's own

            misstep, without more, is not so out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental

            injury as a matter of law"]). Considering, injuries caused by ordinary clumsiness or

            misjudgment and not by some external event do not constitute accidents within the

            Administrative Code or its' equivalent provision in the Retirement and Social Security Law (see

            Stancarone, 161 AD3d at 148; Matter of West v DiNapoli, 79 AD3d 1565, 1566 [3d Dept 2010);

            Matter of Tomita v DiNapoli, 66 AD3d 1071, 1071-1072 [3d Dept 2009); Matter of McCabe v

            Hevesi, 38 AD3d 1035, 1036 [3d Dept 2007)).

                   However, a fall caused by inattention may be an accident if the inattention results in a

            person failing to observe a dangerous condition such as a slippery, wet, or uneven surface. This

            can be true, under certain circumstances, even if the condition would have been readily

            observable had the injured party paid proper attention. So long as the injury-causing event can

            fairly be said to be sudden, unexpected, and not a normal risk of the work performed, it is

            immaterial whether it was hidden or not observable before the accident (see Kelly, 30 NY3d at

             155142/2023 CICCONE, MEENAWATTI vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                            Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001

[* 4]                                                     4 of 6
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 155142/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            685 n3; Starnella, 92 NY2d at 839; Matter of Pratt v Regan, 68 NY2d 746, 747-748 [l 986];

            McCambridge, 62NY2d at 568).

                      The Court of Appeals has applied this definition in a series of cases which reversed the

            denial of awards of Accidental Disability benefits, despite the deferential standard of appellate

            review. In the seminal case of McCambridge v McGuire, the Court reversed award denials for

            falls occurring when a fellow officer moved away as his coworker arose from a desk chair,

            causing the coworker to lose balance and fall; and in the companion case, when an officer

            encountered wet pavement while entering a patrol vehicle during a rainstorm and fell to the

            ground (McCambridge, 62NY2d at 569). In Pratt v Regan, a firefighter fell while exiting his fire

            truck when he stepped into a pothole in the pavement with one foot; the denial of his award was

            also reversed (Pratt, 68 NY2d at 747-748). 1

                      At the November 9, 2022, meeting of the Board of Trustees, there was an extensive

            discussion regarding whether the petitioner should have seen the staircase when she entered the

            backyard and what the circumstances surrounding her fall into the staircase were. The clear

            implication of this discussion was that the Board was primarily, if not exclusively, evaluating

            whether the condition in this matter was readily observable. However, without consideration

            1
             The First Department, following the lead of the Court of Appeals, has recognized that
            circumstances similar to what happened to the petitioner herein can constitute qualifying
            accidents under the Administrative Code. In Matter of Flannelly v Board of Trustees of NYC.
            Police Pension Fund, 278 AD2d 113 [1st Dept 2000], the officer tripped and fell over a "tangle
            of television and VCR wires in the women's locker room of the police station where she worked,
            while performing a routine security inspection" (Id.). The Court found that, as a matter of law,
            the petitioner in Flannelly had suffered a service-related accident, entitling her to an ADR. The
            court noted that, "[t]he record shows that the wires were in an unexpected location at the
            entrance of the locker room, a situation that had been recently created by painters who,
            unbeknownst to petitioner or anyone else in the police station, had moved the television and
            VCR and unplugged their wires" (Id., at 113). These circumstances are strikingly similar to the
            facts herein as well as those presented in McCambridge.
                155142/2023 CICCONE, MEENAWATTI vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                         Page 5 of 6
                Motion No. 001

[* 5]                                                       5 of 6
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 155142/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            were the facts highlighting that the petitioner was in an unfamiliar location, engaged in the

            search of a cellphone belonging to a young girl (not necessarily a routine activity), and fell

            backwards into a recessed staircase with no guardrail. When considering these facts, they

            demonstrate that the petitioner's disability may well have been caused by an event that was a

            sudden fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact. Nor did

            the Board of Trustees adequately consider whether the petitioner's activities leading up to her

            injury were ordinary within the course of her duties as a police officer. Accordingly, this

            proceeding should be remanded back to the Board of Trustees so that they may properly consider

            all of the relevant factors.

                    For the reasons set forth herein and on the record at oral argument, it is hereby;

                    ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition is granted to the limited extent that this

            matter is remanded back to the Board of Trustees for reconsideration on the issue of whether the

            petitioner's disabling injuries were the result of a qualifying accident under the New York City

            Administrative Code; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition is otherwise denied.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                     4/8/2024
                      DATE                                                       NICHOLAS W. MOYNE, J.S.C.

                                                                        §
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED         □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

             155142/2023 CICCONE, MEENAWATTI vs. SEWELL, KEECHANT ET AL                               Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 001

[* 6]                                                       6 of 6