Heinichen v. Kelly
Opinion of the Court
The determination that petitioner’s line of duty injury was not sustained in an accident had a rational basis (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252; Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 60 NY2d 347 [1983]). Petitioner was injured when, while working behind a desk, he forcibly attempted to close a stuck drawer, the drawer abruptly gave way, and he slammed his right thumb on the face of the drawer. The closing of the drawer, a routine task, was not an accident, namely, 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] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Rather, it was the foreseeable and intended result of petitioner’s own conduct (see e.g. Matter of Hopp v Kelly, 4 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2004]; Matter of Bottino v Murphy, 209 AD2d 335 [1st Dept 1994]; compare Matter of Flannelly v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Pension Fund, 278 AD2d 113 [1st Dept 2000]).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.