Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Matter of Walsh v. New York State Comptroller

Posted on 2019-09-162020-08-05

The question in this case was whether a corrections officer was injured an “act of any inmate” when an intoxicated inmate fell on her?

Retirement & Social Security Law (RSSL) § 607-c is one of several provisions in the RSSL that provides performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits for members of the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System (SLERS). That provision, like its counterparts elsewhere in the RSSL, provides that a covered member will be eligible for such retirement benefits if he or she was injured “as the natural and proximate result of any act of any inmate.” RSSL § 607-c(a).

In this case, petitioner corrections officer was called to transport an intoxicated inmate from a local courthouse. When they arrived back at the local jail, the inmate could not stand on her own and fell as she attempted to exit the van, hitting petitioner who was trying to break the inmate’s fall.

Petitioner sought performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits, but the Comptroller denied her application. Petitioner then challenged that determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court transferred to the Third Department on substantial evidence review. The Third Department confirmed the Comptroller’s determination, holding that the phrase “any act of any inmate” requires an affirmative act on the part of an inmate that is “volitional or disobedient” and that no such affirmative act occurred in this case. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Return to the case page for Matter of Walsh v. New York State Comptroller.

By Phil on 2019-09-16.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com