Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Archul v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department

Archul v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department

93 A.D.2d 716, 461 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17543
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 7, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 716 (Archul v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Archul v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, 93 A.D.2d 716, 461 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Order and judgment (one paper) entered November 18, 1981 in Supreme Court, New York County (Stecher, J.), granting respondent’s CPLR article 78 petition and remanding the matter to the board of trustees of the pension fund for reconsideration, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the petition is [717]*717dismissed, without costs. From June of 1951 until July of 1977 petitioner was a New York City fireman. He sustained line-of-duty injuries in 1953,1954,1961 and 1974, but none of the medical records pertaining to these injuries disclosed any problems with his back, or even related injuries which could be seen as causally connected. The medical board has reviewed this matter numerous times and was not persuaded by contrary medical opinion that his back problems now were caused by the earlier accidents. Since the burden of proof as to causality is upon petitioner, there is no presumption in his favor which the board must overcome. We are satisfied that, upon the record, the board could reasonably find that petitioner’s back injuries were not caused by line-of-duty injuries. Thus, the grant of only an ordinary disability pension by the board of trustees was not arbitrary or capricious. (See Matter ofScotto v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City ofN. Y., Art. II, 76 AD2d 774, 776, affd 54 NY2d 918.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Ross, Carro and Alexander, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Lahm v. Bloomberg
2004 NY Slip Op 24217 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004)
Lahm v. Bloomberg
4 Misc. 3d 530 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Savidis v. Board of Education Retirement System
295 A.D.2d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Meyer v. Board of Trustees
681 N.E.2d 382 (New York Court of Appeals, 1997)
Connelly v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department
237 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Kmiotek v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department
232 A.D.2d 640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Wolyniec v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department
232 A.D.2d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Whitton v. Spinnato
143 A.D.2d 274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Brown v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
99 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Matter of Archul v. Bd. of Trs. of the New York City Fire Dep't, Article 1b Pension Fund
454 N.E.2d 123 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.2d 716, 461 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archul-v-board-of-trustees-of-new-york-city-fire-department-nyappdiv-1983.