Petitioner, a working supervisor who cared for mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed patients, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits in connection with four incidents that occurred while he was assisting patients. Respondent denied the application on the ground that the incidents did not constitute "accidents" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 Retire. Soc. Sec.. We confirm. An "accident" is a sudden and fortuitous happening which does not result from an event that may be expected to occur in the performance of ordinary employment duties ( see, Matter of Talerico v. McCall, 239 A.D.2d 863, 863-864). Here, three of the incidents giving rise to the claim for benefits occurred when patients physically resisted petitioner's care. The remaining incident occurred when petitioner was attempting to steady a falling patient. Inasmuch as petitioner was performing his ordinary employment duties when the patient began to fall and often experienced physical resistance from his patients, substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner did not suffer an "accident" within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law ( see, Matter of Mangonon v. Regan, 203 A.D.2d 874; Matter of Esposito v. Regan, 162 A.D.2d 870; Matter of Deos v. Levitt, 62 A.D.2d 1121).
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.