Opinion
2012-07-3
In re Kenneth PACCIO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., Lake Success (Chet Lukaszewski of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Paul T. Rephen of counsel), for respondents.
Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., Lake Success (Chet Lukaszewski of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Paul T. Rephen of counsel), for respondents.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered May 5, 2010, denying the petition to annul respondents' determination, dated July 8, 2009, which denied petitioner's application for accident disability retirement pension benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Board of Trustees denied petitioner's application for accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits, as a consequence of a tie vote upon the issue of whether petitioner's disability was caused by a service-related accident. Since there was some credible evidence to support the Medical Board's conclusion that petitioner's disability was not caused by a service-related accident, the Board of Trustees was entitled to rely on the Medical Board's recommendation as to causation, and its determination denying petitioner ADR benefits may not be disturbed ( see Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1–B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 144–145, 659 N.Y.S.2d 215, 681 N.E.2d 382 [1997];Matter of Beckles v. Kerik, 1 A.D.3d 215, 767 N.Y.S.2d 225 [2003],lv. denied1 N.Y.3d 507, 776 N.Y.S.2d 539, 808 N.E.2d 859 [2004] ).
Contrary to petitioner's contention that the Board of Trustees failed to address explicitly all the medical evidence and to explain fully its reasons for disagreeing with petitioner's experts, it is clear from the record that the Board considered the relevant medical records, and the proceedings disclose the reason for its denial of ADR benefits sufficiently to permit judicial review ( see Matter of Galli v. Bratton, 238 A.D.2d 252, 656 N.Y.S.2d 872 [1997];Matter of Curran v. McGuire, 87 A.D.2d 223, 226, 450 N.Y.S.2d 836 [1982] ).