In re McDonough v. City of Oneonta

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of McDonough v. City of Oneonta

    90 N.Y.2d 803 (N.Y. 1997)

    Decided June 17, 1997 Appeal from the 3d Dept: 237 A.D.2d 692 MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

  2. In the Matter of White v. Cty. of Cortland

    283 A.D.2d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    We affirm. General Municipal Law ยง 207-c is a remedial statute intended to benefit law enforcement personnel disabled by a work-related illness or injury and, as such, should be liberally construed in their favor (see, Matter of Leone v. Oneida County Sheriff's Dept., 166 A.D.2d 74, 76, affd 80 N.Y.2d 850). The language of the statute and precedent from this Court require only that the claimant prove disability and a causal relationship between the disability and the claimant's job duties (see, Matter of McDonough v. City of Oneonta, 237 A.D.2d 692, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 803; Matter of Hamilton v. City of Schenectady, 210 A.D.2d 843; Matter of De Poalo v. County of Schenectady, 200 A.D.2d 277, affd 85 N.Y.2d 527). Consequently, to the extent, if any, that Fourth Department cases (see, Matter of Dembowski v. Hanna, 245 A.D.2d 1039, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 813; Matter of McNamara v. City of Syracuse, 60 A.D.2d 753; Matter of Geremski v. Department of Fire of City of Syracuse, 72 Misc.2d 166, affd 42 A.D.2d 1050, lv denied 33 N.Y.2d 521) and an opinion of the Comptroller (see, 1992 Opns St Comp No. 92-15) can be read to require proof of work-related causality to a substantial degree, we decline to follow them.