Line-of-Duty Injury Lawyer Blog

NYS Trooper Injured After Patrol Vehicle Struck on Thruway While Assisting Motorist – Officer’s Right to Sue

O'Hare Parnagian, LLP — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:23:45 +0000

A New York State trooper was injured and hospitalized after her marked patrol vehicle was struck by an out-of-control car on the New York State Thruway in Erie County.

The crash occurred in the early morning hours of February 7, in Lancaster. Two state troopers had pulled over on the left shoulder to assist a disabled motorist. Their patrol car was positioned with emergency lights activated as the officers rendered assistance.

While the troopers were outside their vehicle, a Kia sedan traveling westbound reportedly lost control, spun out, and slammed into the back of the marked cruiser. The force of the crash pushed the patrol vehicle forward, striking one of the troopers and throwing her off the shoulder of the roadway into the snow.

Police Cruiser Rear-Ended During Storm Highlights Officers’ Right to Sue Under New York Law

O'Hare Parnagian, LLP — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:55:50 +0000

A recent incident in the Hudson Valley underscores a danger police officers face every day — and an important legal right many officers are not aware they have.

On January 25, during a winter storm, a New York State Police trooper stopped on the Taconic State Parkway to assist a disabled motorist. The patrol vehicle was parked in the northbound lanes with all emergency lights activated. While the trooper was rendering aid, another northbound vehicle traveling on the snow-covered roadway rear-ended the stopped police cruiser.

The facts of this incident raise a critical legal issue: what happens when an officer is injured in a crash like this?

Westchester County Cop Injured in Crash by Woman Evading Car Stop with Infant in Her Car

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Sun, 14 Feb 2021 18:19:57 +0000

A Westchester County Cop was injured in the line of duty during a car chase after a fellow officer tried to pull over a driver who was operating a vehicle with a temporary license plate hidden under a dark tinted cover and having heavily tinted windows. In our view, the injured officer certainly has claims for his line of duty injuries under both New York’s General Municipal Law § 205-e and New York’s General Obligations Law § 11-106 and has a right to sue.

The chase started around 1909 hours on Wednesday, February 10, 2021, when a first officer tried to pull over the vehicle, a Nissan Maxima, on the Hutchinson River Parkway in New Rochelle. The vehicle, operated by a 20-year old woman, fled the car stop traveling northbound on the Hutch. Other officers joined in the chase, including the New York State Police and the Westchester County PD’s aviation unit. With PD vehicles following, the Nissan Maxima headed onto Route I-684 northbound where its escape was thwarted by heavy traffic. As the County PD units and State Police closed in, the driver tried to force one marked County PD cruiser off the road. The officer in that car avoided a crash by driving onto the left shoulder of the roadway. As the Nissan Maxima moved from the center lane into the right lane, it struck another County PD cruiser. The Nissan Maxima stopped when it crashed into a snowbank in Lewisboro. Police were surprised to find an 8-month old infant in the back seat of the car. The woman was taken into custody by County PD. Following evaluation by Northern Westchester Hospital Center, the child was released to its family, and child Protective Services was notified. It is unknown why the woman driver fled the police car stop.

The County PD officer operating the cruiser that was struck by the Nissan Maxima sustained injuries.

New York City Police Officer Accidentally Shot with in Face and Chest with Taser Gun by Sergeant is Not Entitled to Recover Damages

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Fri, 25 Jan 2019 05:02:17 +0000

In a disappointing case on many levels, a New York City Police Officer was accidentally shot in the face and chest with a taser by his sergeant. The officer was assigned as the patrol sergeant’s driver in the Bronx’s PSA 7. He left the PSA to inspect the assigned RMP (police cruiser) before he and the sergeant were to begin patrol. After the inspection, he returned to the main desk of PSA 7 where the sergeant was standing. The officer stood by waiting for the sergeant. The sergeant removed a taser gun from the main desk and conducted a spark test. However, the taser discharged and lodged prongs into the officer’s lower jaw and chest. The officer, who was electrocuted, was immediately rushed to the hospital. The prong lodged in officer’s jaw required surgical removal. Unfortunately, the officer suffered nerve damage from the incident and sued the City and sergeant for common-law negligence and under New York’s General Municipal Law (GML) 205-e which gives all police officers in New York the right to sue for line of duty injuries where a violation of a statute, ordinance, code, rule, or regulation causes directly or indirectly the officer’s injuries. In a disappointing decision, the court denied the officer’s claims.

Under New York’s General Obligations Law § 11-106, officers have a right to sue members of the general public when the officer is injured in the line of duty, that is while engaged in the “lawful discharge of his [or her] official duties.” However, under the old “firefighter’s rule,” an officer still has no right to sue a fellow officer or his or her municipal employer unless it can be shown that the officer was not engaged in official duties. On this point, courts have said that if the activity involved “increases the risk of the injury happening” or if the activity is “plainly a risk associated with the particular dangers inherent in police work,” the officer cannot sue a fellow officer or his municipal employer. Courts have established a really low bar as to what sort of activity is considered a risk plainly inherent to police work.

In this recent case, the court found that merely standing in the police precinct waiting for the sergeant – a mundane activity indeed – “constituted an act taken in furtherance of a specific police function.” The court found (i) that the police officer was on duty and waiting for the sergeant as the sergeant’s operator; and (ii) “the discharge of a taser, accidental or otherwise, clearly constitute[d] a risk associated with the particular dangers of police work,” in part because the sergeant “had received specialized training on using the taser in a safe manner.” The court held the officer was performing police duties that “increased the risk of the injury happening and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury.” It is unclear from the case, whether the officer was standing in an area of the station house open to the general public and whether that fact would have changed the judge’s mind.

New York Police Officer Recovers $1.5 Million for Slip and Fall on Snow Covered Front Steps While Responding to Burglar Alarm

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:50:48 +0000

A Nassau County police officer was injured when he slipped and fell on front steps covered with snow at a residence while investigating a burglar alarm. He successfully recovered $1.5 million following a jury trial on his claim against the homeowners under New York’s General Municipal Law (GML) 205-e which gives New York police officers the right to sue for line-of-duty injuries where a violation of a statute, ordinance, code, rule, or regulation gives rise to the officer’s injuries. This law applies to all police officers, including members of the NYPD, and all members of police departments in Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties.

At the time of his fall, the officer was investigating the source of an alarm that had been triggered at a home. In the week before the incident, the alarm had been triggered three separate times, and the police had been notified on each occasion. The alarm company had been instructed to contact the homeowners in the event that the alarm went off, or a relative in their absence. Thus, in this case, the homeowners clearly were on notice that the police had been responding to the alarms at the residence and reasonably could be expected to do so in the future if the alarm was triggered. The snow had last fallen three days before the occurrence. There was no lighting around the home and the officer had to rely on his flashlight. The owners claimed that their home was a summer residence and so they did not hire anyone to remove snow or ice on the property. Following a jury trial in favor of the officer, the homeowners appealed.

In order to bring an action under GML 205-e, the police officer was required to identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply. Under GML 205-e, liability will exist where there is negligent noncompliance with “any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments or of any and all their departments, divisions and bureaus.” The courts have required that the cited violation must be found among a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes a clear duty on the defendant.

In this case, the appellate court held that the officer established that the homeowners had violated section 302.3 of the Property Maintenance Code (1) by failing to maintain their front steps so that they were free of hazardous conditions, (2) that the officer slipped on a hazardous snow condition on the front steps, and (3) “that his injuries were practically and reasonably connected to the [homeowners]’ violation of section 302.3 of the Property Maintenance Code.” In doing so, the appellate court upheld the civil jury verdict in favor of the officer and his wife. The court was not persuaded by the homeowners’ argument that the officer’s injury occurred at a “summer house,” thus implying that a lesser duty was expected of the homeowners during the off-season.

On these wintery, snowy days, police officers and other first responders can take some comfort knowing that if they are injured in the line of duty that they and their families can receive just compensation for their injuries caused by the negligence of those violating statutes, codes, and regulations designed for public safety and security.

We are experienced New York line-of-duty injury attorneys representing injured police officers and other first responders. Call us to discuss your legal rights at 212.425.1401 or contact us online.

Additional Resources

Byrne v. Nicosia, 104 A.D.3d 717, 961 N.Y.S.2d 261 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t).

NYPD Sergeant Entitled to Line-of-Duty Pension Benefits

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:45:39 +0000

A judge overturned an unsupported determination by the New York City Police Pension Fund Board of Trustees and granted a line-of-duty accidental disability retirement to an NYPD Sergeant who had suffered a stroke while searching for an armed murder suspect.

The trustees had only granted the sergeant an ordinary disability retirement following a 6 to 6 vote of the board. Under the law, when a police officer or firefighter suffers a heart attack or stroke there is a presumption that he or she be granted an accidental disability retirement. The medical board had found that the sergeant’s June 2010 stroke was caused by a congenital aneurysm that spontaneously ruptured. However, the court said the pension fund’s findings in this regard were “based on conjecture.”

The sergeant, then an 18-year veteran of the NYPD, was finishing her tour when a radio run came over regarding an armed murder suspect. She volunteered to investigate and selected a driver – a uniformed member of the service (MOS) – to assist. She and the other officer headed through traffic in their radio car toward an Upper West Side subway station where the suspect was reported to have been spotted. Upon arrival at the scene, the sergeant told her driver that she felt pain in her neck, was light-headed, and was developing a severe headache. Sensing something was seriously wrong, the driver rushed the sergeant to St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital. On the way there, she lost consciousness. The sergeant was later diagnosed with a ruptured aneurysm and a cerebral hemorrhage – a stroke.

The sergeant was admitted to the hospital for two-weeks, and then to Helen Hayes Rehab Center for in-patient rehabilitation. Her doctors said she suffered from cognitive, mobility, and self-care deficits because of the stroke. Thereafter, the sergeant applied for an accidental disability retirement, relying on the Heart/Stroke Bill, General Municipal Law §207-k. Generally, accidental disability benefits are three-quarters of the retiring officer’s annual salary and are non-taxable.

Normally, an officer seeking an accidental disability retirement has the burden of establishing that the disability was causally connected to a line-of-duty accident/injury. However, the law under the Heart/Stroke Bill states that where, like here, an officer passes physical and medical entry exams which failed to detect a health condition associated with heart disease or stroke, she shall be presumed to have suffered any subsequent heart ailment or stroke “in the performance and discharge of duty, unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence.” The theory behind the law is that not only are heart conditions and strokes occupational hazards for police officers and firefighters, but they are also unique conditions which generally are not the result of any particular incident but involve a gradual and progressive degeneration as a result of the continuous stresses and strains of the job.

Here, the court found that the medical board and the pension board failed to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of the officer with competent medical evidence. Instead, they simply argued that they didn’t know what caused the stroke. Accordingly, the court found that the decision to deny the sergeant’s request for an accidental disability retirement was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Thankfully, the judge had the wisdom to set this right and give the sergeant the justice she deserved.

We are experienced New York line-of-duty injury attorneys representing police officers and other first responders. Call us to discuss your legal rights at 212.425.1401 or contact us online.

Additional Resources

Matter of the Application of Kersellius v. Bratton, Index No. 100573/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County).

Heart/Stroke Bill, New York General Municipal Law §207-k.

Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act Reauthorized; Victims Compensation Fund Renewed

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:59:50 +0000

As part of the Year-End Tax and Spending Bill, Congress renewed and extended the Zadroga Act for the next 75 years. It essentially makes the program permanent. In doing so, Congress has provided a combined $8.1 billion for the program, and fully-funded, for the next five years, the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. The president signed the bill into law on December 18^th.

Among other things, the WTC Heath Program will continue to provide vital health care and medical monitoring for 9/11 related illnesses for first responders and survivors. First responders and survivors who have moved out of the NYC metropolitan area will continue to receive necessary health care and medical monitoring. NYC will continue to match up to 10% of the cost associated with the program. Research into diagnosing and treating 9/11 related illness will continue as well.

The September 11^th Victim Compensation Fund which was set to close in October 2016 will continue to provide needed compensation to first responders, survivors, and surviving families. This fund has paid out over $1.44 billion to those who were injured or killed in the line of duty or have fallen in to various cancers and medical conditions. The fund is expecting more claims as delayed onset of various cancers related to 9/11 exposure manifest themselves in the coming years.

On December 18, 2015, the president signed the new law. It was the heroic result of a year-long effort by police officers and firefighters. NYPD unions, led by the Sergeants Benevolent Association, pressed hard for the legislation. The renewal legislation received wide bi-partisan support and passed the House 313-113 and the Senate 65-33. New York’s congressional delegation led the charge.

Thankfully, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, EMTS, and other first responders will continue to have their line of duty injuries and illnesses caused by the WTC terrorist attacks treated and compensated.

This is another basis on which police officers, firefighters, paramedics and EMTs can get compensation when they are injured in the line of duty. We are experienced New York line-of-duty injury attorneys representing police officers and other first responders. Call us to discuss your legal rights at 212.425.1401 or contact us online.

Additional Resources

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF)

NYC Rescue and Recovery Workers

Gun Shop Owner to Pay $5.73 Million to Two Police Officers Shot in the Line of Duty

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:38:44 +0000

A jury ordered Badger Guns, one of the country’s most notorious firearms dealers, to pay $5.73 million for negligence in the 2009 shootings of police officers Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch. The officers suffered catastrophic injuries when they were brutally shot in the line of duty.

The landmark case held the firearms retailer responsible for disregarding the potential harm of its guns sales. It is the first verdict of its kind in the nation and sends a strong message that reckless gun dealers will be held accountable and brought to justice. The officers had to overcome a federal law passed in 2005 which granted broad civil immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers. However, there are several exceptions. Among these is that a gun dealer will be held liable for “negligent entrustment” of a firearm to a suspect buyer. It was this exception upon which the jury relied in reaching its verdict, which included $750,000 in punitive damages.

In May 2009, surveillance footage of the gun purchase showed a “straw buyer” purchasing the gun for an 18-year old who was too young to purchase the gun himself. The 18-year old is seen gesturing to his gun of choice – a Taurus PT140 Pro .40 caliber handgun and saying, “that’s the one I want.” The store clerk claimed he hadn’t noticed any of this. Worse, when the straw buyer initially checked “no” to being the actual buyer/transferee of the gun, the same clerk counseled him to change his answer to “yes.” Two days later, the 18-year old and the straw buyer returned to pick up the gun and ammo.

A month later the two officers were on patrol when they noticed the 18-year old riding a bike on a sidewalk in violation of a local ordinance. The officers directed him to move off the sidewalk, but the 18-year old continued. When the officers got out of their radio car and started pursuing the 18-year old to question him, he fought with the officers, pulled out the gun, and started shooting. One officer was struck in the face. He lost an eye and suffered brain damage. The other was struck several times, including in the neck.

The firearms dealer has vowed an appeal. Let’s hope justice prevails once again.

This is another example of how the civil justice system can help police officers receive just compensation when they are injured in the line of duty. We are experienced New York attorneys representing police officers and other first responders. Call us to discuss your legal rights at 212.425.1401 or contact us online.

New York Courts Consider When an NYPD Officer Can Sue for Line-of-Duty Motor Vehicle Injuries

O'Hare Parnagian, LLP — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:10:38 +0000

Two recent New York court decisions demonstrate situations in which police officers are and are not able to sue for damages for a line-of-duty injury.

In Alvarado v. Ortiz, decided by the New York County Supreme Court, the plaintiff was NYPD Officer Alvarado who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in duty, driving to retrieve a bullet proof vest from an NYPD shooting range. Officer Alvarado was a passenger in a New York Police Department Vehicle driven by her partner when it was hit from behind by defendant Mr. Ortiz. She sustained a serious injury to her neck in the collision.

In certain line-of-duty accidents, officers are prohibited from bringing a personal injury lawsuit against a negligent party. This is due to the “firefighters rule” which prevents firefighters and police officers from recovering damages in negligence lawsuits where the injury arises out of the type of risk they assume as part of their duties. The basis for the rule is that public safety officers such as firefighters and police officers knowingly take on a dangerous profession, and willingly assume the risks associated with those dangers, so the public should not be held liable for injuries that are sustained while the officers are carrying out that function.

In New York, there are exceptions to the firefighters rule written into the General Municipal Law § 205. That section allows officers who are injured in the line-of-duty to sue defendants who violate a statute. To win a case on that basis, the plaintiff needs to show that firstly, a law was violated, secondly, that the violation led “directly or indirectly” to the injury, and finally that the violation was due to the defendant’s omission, neglect, or willful or culpable conduct.

The Court in Alvarado discussed the General Municipal Law before determining that the firefighter’s rule did not even apply in this instance, because at the time of the accident, the police officers were simply riding in a vehicle to collect an item of police apparel, which is not especially dangerous and did not relate to “the particular dangers which police officers are expected to assume as part of their duties increasing the risk of injury.” Officer Alvarado was allowed to proceed with her negligence lawsuit.

Compare this decision to the appeals court’s decision in Moore v. City of New York for an example of the firefighter’s rule in action. Police officer Moore’s injury occurred when he was responding to an emergency call and his brakes failed, causing the marked NYPD vehicle to plow into a building, causing him injury. He sued the City for negligence, asserting it failed to properly and safely maintain the vehicle in which he was traveling.

The Court held that the lawsuit was barred by the firefighters rule because, at the time of the accident, Officer Moore was responding to an emergency which is a specific police function that exposed him to an increased risk of injury. The injury was connected to a special hazard that a police officer assumes as part of his duties. The Court did not allow Officer Moore to proceed with the lawsuit based on the exception in GML 205-e as his case theory did not fulfil the criteria required, namely that a breach of a statute or ordinance lead to his injury.

We are experienced attorneys representing police officers, fire fighters and other first responders who are injured in the line-of-duty and when responding to emergencies. Call us and learn your legal entitlements at 2124251401, or contact us online to arrange a consultation to discuss your legal options.

Alvarado v. Ortiz, 113139/2010, NYLJ 1202659811674 (Sup. NY, Decided June 4, 2014)

Moore v. City of New York 126 A.D.3d 6795 N.Y.S.3d 199

Paramedic Fired for Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason

Robert "Bobby" O'Hare — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:20:20 +0000

In a recent appeals court decision, it was held that an ambulance service was justified in firing a paramedic for violation of company policy, and that the paramedic’s sexual orientation was not a factor in his termination, as was alleged by the paramedic in his lawsuit.

In Miranda v. ESA Hudson Valley, Inc., the plaintiff was a paramedic employed by ESA Hudson Valley, an ambulance service. The Paramedic had responsibility for controlled substances stored in a “narcotics box” for use during his tour of duty. Typically, for each tour, the Paramedic had a key to the inner door of the narcotics box and his Emergency Medical Technician (or EMT) partner had a key to the outer door of the box, a system which was designed so that no one individual would have access to the drugs during the tour. The Paramedic was also responsible for taking inventory of the narcotics box and logging the box in and out at the beginning and end of each tour.

After discovering discrepancies in the controlled substances records and inventory sheets, the Ambulance Service reviewed the surveillance tapes from the camera over the area where controlled substances were kept and learned that that on the day in question, the narcotics box was not properly secured. The Paramedic was fired, allegedly for “a serious violation of company policy regarding the security of controlled substances.” The Paramedic asserted, however, that after he informed some of his superiors he was gay, some six months prior to his termination, he went onto a “hit list” and discrimination was the real reason for which he was fired. The New York Human Rights Law expressly prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation. The Paramedic sued. His lawsuit was dismissed and he appealed.

The appeals court upheld his firing. It found that the Ambulance Service had established a “legitimate and non-discriminatory basis” for firing the Paramedic, in that that he was found to have violated the controlled substances policies and procedures. The Paramedic agreed at his deposition that leaving the door to the controlled substances box open “wasn’t something you’re supposed to do.” The Court found that the Paramedic failed to show that his firing “was designed to mask . . . discrimination” and concluded that there was no discriminatory motive and the issues concerning the discrepancies in the narcotics box records were the real reasons for his firing.

It is noteworthy that the appeals court pointed out that the Ambulance Service could have fired the Paramedic for an earlier incident but did not. That incident involved a complaint by a fellow employee, a male, that the Paramedic had touched him inappropriately. Rather than fire the Paramedic then, the Ambulance Service instead required that he attend a sexual harassment seminar. The court noted that such facts undermined the Paramedic’s claims that his firing for the security lapses concerning the controlled substances was pre-textual and that discrimination was the real reason for his termination.

We have extensive experience representing police officers, fire fighters and other first responders who are injured in the line-of-duty and when responding to emergencies. These are cases in which we truly believe. Call us and find out what other types of compensation you might be entitled to at 212.425.1401, or contact us online to arrange a consultation to discuss your legal options.

Miranda v. Esa Hudson Valley, Inc., 124 A.D.3d 1158 (2015), 2 N.Y.S.3d 668, 125 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1784.