Lenci v. DiNapoli, 92 A.D.3d 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Lenci v. DiNapoli, 92 A.D.3d 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2012–2013 · …petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent's determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence at p. 1078 ✓ Topic ↗
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Karst v. DiNapoli (nyappdiv, 2018-12-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Karst v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
In our view, substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner was acting within the scope of his employment duties as a police officer when he attempted to break down the door to alert the resident of a fire and that his injuries did not result from a sudden, unexpected event that was not an inherent risk of such duties ( see Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli , 30 NY3d at 684-685 ; Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli , 92 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Buckley v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
A police officer's duties include restraining disruptive individuals ( see Matter of Quartucio v DiNapoli , 110 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2013]; Matter of Reynolds v DiNapoli , 97 AD3d 892, 893 [2012]) and responding to life-threatening emergencies ( see Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli , 30 NY3d at 684-685 ; Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli , 92 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fiducia v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Roth v DiNapoli, 105 AD3d 1183, 1184 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fiducia v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Roth v DiNapoli, 105 AD3d 1183, 1184 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roth v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Initially, it is well settled that the burden is upon petitioner to demonstrate that his injury was the result of an accident (see Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2012]; Matter of Murphy v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roth v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Initially, it is well settled that the burden is upon petitioner to demonstrate that his injury was the result of an accident (see Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2012]; Matter of Murphy v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sikoryak v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sikoryak v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suppa v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suppa v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
To establish entitlement to accidental disability retirement benefits, a petitioner must demonstrate that the incident giving rise to the injuries was a sudden mischance unrelated to the ordinary risks of performing his or her job (see Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012]; Matter of Rykala v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1077, 1077-1078 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
To establish entitlement to accidental disability retirement benefits, a petitioner must demonstrate that the incident giving rise to the injuries was a sudden mischance unrelated to the ordinary risks of performing his or her job (see Matter of Lenci v DiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2012]; Matter of Rykala v New York State Comptroller, 92 AD3d 1077, 1077-1078 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Marc Lenci
v.
Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 9, 2012.
92 A.D.3d 1078
Garry.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Garry, J.

Petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits based upon several incidents that occurred throughout his tenure as a police officer. Respondent denied petitioner’s application, finding that none of the incidents constituted accidents within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the notice requirement was not met with regard to the incident alleged to have occurred on November 16, 2000. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, contending that the incident occurring on November 16, 2000 does constitute an accident and that adequate notice of the incident was provided.

Petitioner bears the burden of proving that his injury was accidental, and respondent’s determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Kempkes v DiNapoli, 81 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2011]; Matter of Carducci v DiNapoli, 77 AD3d 1052, 1052 [2010]). An injury is accidental within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law if it arises out of a “sudden, fortuitous mischance” that is unexpected and unrelated to the ordinary risks of the petitioner’s job duties (Matter of Hulse v DiNapoli, 70 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of [*1079] Kempkes v DiNapoli, 81 AD3d at 1072; Matter of Carducci v DiNapoli, 77 AD3d at 1052-1053). Petitioner testified that while he was providing emergency assistance to a citizen who was trapped beneath concrete pieces atop a “precarious” and “off kilter” scaffolding, the scaffolding shifted, causing petitioner to injure his back. Petitioner’s job duties included responding to various types of emergencies and providing assistance to citizens in need; accordingly, we find that petitioner’s injury occurred while he was performing his ordinary job duties, was within the normal risks inherent in the performance of those duties, and could have reasonably been anticipated (see Matter of Kempkes v DiNapoli, 81 AD3d at 1072; Matter of Franks v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 47 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2008]). As respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application on this basis is supported by substantial evidence, we need not consider petitioner’s remaining argument.

Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.