From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Simmons v. Herkommer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 1984
465 N.E.2d 38 (N.Y. 1984)

Opinion

Decided May 3, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Bernard Nadel, J.

Richard A. Dienst and Peter A. Schwartz for appellant.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel ( Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The presumption created by section 207-k of the General Municipal Law is rebuttable ( Matter of Uniformed Fire-fighters Assn. v Beekman, 52 N.Y.2d 463, 472-473). The expert opinion of the Medical Board constituted competent evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption ( Matter of Ferrigno v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 48 N.Y.2d 788) and it was for the Board of Trustees to determine whether that opinion or the one offered by the petitioner's expert was to be credited.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Simmons v. Herkommer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 1984
465 N.E.2d 38 (N.Y. 1984)
Case details for

Matter of Simmons v. Herkommer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL SIMMONS, Appellant, v. HAROLD HERKOMMER, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 3, 1984

Citations

465 N.E.2d 38 (N.Y. 1984)
465 N.E.2d 38
476 N.Y.S.2d 531

Citing Cases

Richter v. Kelly

In general, the Medical Board has been able to successfully rebut the Heart Bill presumption when the medical…

Mtr. of Travers v. Kelly

The fact that stress is not mentioned as a cause for aortic regurgitation does not imply that it has been…