IN RE AIDAN DOORLEY, pet-ap, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. res-res

10017. IN RE AIDAN DOORLEY, pet-ap, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. res-res — Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C., Port Washington, (Jeffery L. Goldberg of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Inga Van Eysden of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered June 10, 2011, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul respondent Board of Trustees' July 14, 2010 determination denying petitioner's application for accident disability retirement benefits (ADR) based on his psychological condition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10017. IN RE AIDAN DOORLEY, pet-ap, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. res-res — Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C., Port Washington, (Jeffery L. Goldberg of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Inga Van Eysden of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered June 10, 2011, which denied the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul respondent Board of Trustees’ July 14, 2010 determination denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits (ADR) based on his psychological condition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An applicant for ADR benefits “has the burden of establishing that the disability is causally connected to a line-of-duty accident” (Matter of Evans v. City of New York, 145 AD2d 361, 361 [1st Dept 1988]). The Board of Trustees’ determination of whether petitioner met this burden and established causation only need be based on credible evidence in the record (see Matter of Wahl v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City fire Dept., 89 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1997]; Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). The denial of ADR by the Board of Trustees based on a tie vote, as occurred here, can only be set aside on judicial review if the court concludes that the applicant is entitled to the increased benefits as a matter of law based on the record because “the disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident” (Matter of Canfora v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. Of City of N.Y., Art. II, 60 NY2d 347, 352 [1983]; see Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City fire Dept., Art. I-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139, 145 [1997]).

IN RE AIDAN DOORLEY, pet-ap, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal