## Facts

- Norman Richardson worked for Fiedler Roofing, Inc. as a waterproofer and roofing mechanic.
- While on a roofing job, Richardson and a coworker were on the roof at their work location during work time, waiting for materials and with no assigned tasks.
- While waiting, they moved across portions of the roof and adjoining party walls to another part of the structure and removed copper downspouts to sell as salvage.
- During that activity, Richardson slipped on ice, fell seven stories, and died from head injuries.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board found the practice of removing downspouts for salvage was known to and tolerated by the employer and awarded death benefits to Richardson’s dependents.

## Issues

1. Whether a fatal injury sustained while committing theft at the jobsite can “arise out of and in the course of employment” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10.
2. Whether the theft was a “purely personal pursuit” that severed the employment nexus and barred compensation.
3. Whether an “illegal act” exclusion should be implied into Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 despite the statute’s lack of such an express exception.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, sustaining the Workers’ Compensation Board’s award of death benefits.
- The court held the death arose out of and in the course of employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, even though Richardson was engaged in theft when he fell.
- The court deferred to the Board’s supported finding that the conduct, in context, was not a purely personal pursuit because it occurred on work time and premises and was known and tolerated by the employer.
- The court rejected an implied “illegal act” bar, noting that the Legislature included such an exclusion elsewhere in the statutory scheme but not in § 10.

## Legal Principles

- Compensation is payable only for injuries that “arise out of and in the course of employment” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10.
- Injuries during “purely personal pursuits” are not compensable; the inquiry turns on whether the activity was reasonable and sufficiently work-related under the circumstances.
- Employee illegality does not automatically defeat coverage when the injury remains sufficiently connected in time, place, and circumstances to the employment relationship.
- Courts will not add an “illegal act” exception to § 10 absent statutory text, particularly where the Legislature created express illegal-act exclusions in other benefit provisions but omitted one from workers’ compensation liability.
- The Board’s course-of-employment determinations are primarily factual and are upheld when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court sustained workers’ compensation death benefits because the fatal fall occurred on the jobsite during work time and the Board could find the conduct, though illegal, remained sufficiently tied to the employment relationship given the employer’s knowledge and tolerance, and because Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 contains no express illegal-act exclusion.


Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 246 (N.Y. 1986)