Connolly v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connolly v. Kelly

213 A.D.2d 272, 624 N.Y.S.2d 24

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 272 (Connolly v. Kelly) 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

Connolly v. Kelly, 213 A.D.2d 272, 624 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered November 3, 1993, which inter alia, granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter to the respondent Police Department for the reinstatement of the petitioner so that he can be restored to eligibility for consideration of disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances, respondents’ failure to inform petitioner, prior to his termination, that his "line-of-duty” injury was so severe that he would be unable to return to full duty status amounts to bad faith termination since petitioner was thereby effectively precluded from applying for disability retirement benefits (Matter of Bellman v McGuire, 140 AD2d 262). Indeed, not only does the record reflect that petitioner was unaware that his injury was permanently disabling, respondent Police Department continued to provide him with rehabilitation therapy up to the date of his termination.

We find petitioner’s cross-appeal to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered November 3, 1993, which inter alia, granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter to the respondent Police Department for the reinstatement of the petitioner so that he can be restored to eligibility for consideration of disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances, respondents’ failure to inform petitioner, prior to his termination, that his "line-of-duty” injury was so severe that he would be unable to return to full duty status amounts to bad faith termination since petitioner was thereby effectively precluded from applying for disability retirement benefits (Matter of Bellman v McGuire, 140 AD2d 262). Indeed, not only does the record reflect that petitioner was unaware that his injury was permanently disabling, respondent Police Department continued to provide him with rehabilitation therapy up to the date of his termination.

We find petitioner’s cross-appeal to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 272, 624 N.Y.S.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack