From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 12, 2011
84 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 5048.

May 12, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered November 4, 2009, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to, among other things, annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees denying petitioner police officer's application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jeffrey L. Goldberg, Lake Success, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen J. Seemen of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.


The determination that petitioner's condition was not job-related had a rational basis. The statutory presumption set forth in General Municipal Law § 207-k (as amended by L 2006, ch 654, § 1) was sufficiently rebutted by competent evidence that petitioner's condition was caused by her cardiac arrhythmia, not a stroke ( see Matter of DeMonico v Kelly, 49 AD3d 265, 266). It was the sole province of the Medical Board and the Board of Trustees to resolve the conflicts in evidence ( see Matter of Santoro v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept. Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 217 AD2d 660, 660).

[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32566(U).]


Summaries of

In re Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 12, 2011
84 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In re Higgins

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HEIDI HIGGINS, Appellant, v. RAYMOND KELLY, as Police…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 12, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3961
921 N.Y.S.2d 856

Citing Cases

D'Amico v. O'Neill

B. Assuming entitlement to the presumption, did respondents rebut it?To the extent that petitioner has shown…

Shank v. Shea

In addition, the Medical Board expressly stated that it had reviewed petitioner's medical records and…