Dittrich v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dittrich v. Board of Trustees

37 A.D.3d 342, 831 N.Y.S.2d 134

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 342 (Dittrich v. Board of Trustees) 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

Dittrich v. Board of Trustees, 37 A.D.3d 342, 831 N.Y.S.2d 134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 30, 2005, which denied petitioner police officer’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accidental disability retirement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application court correctly held that the determination that petitioner is not disabled is supported by credible evidence, and aptly noted that any conflicts in the medical evidence were for the Medical Board to resolve (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). We would only add that insofar as petitioner relies on the fact that he has not been returned to full duty since the shooting that allegedly caused his claimed post-traumatic stress disorder, his uninterrupted limited duty status was not on account of any recommendations by Police Department mental health professionals. It has been the consistent position of the Department’s Psychological Services Unit that petitioner can be returned to full duty with firearms. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 30, 2005, which denied petitioner police officer’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accidental disability retirement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application court correctly held that the determination that petitioner is not disabled is supported by credible evidence, and aptly noted that any conflicts in the medical evidence were for the Medical Board to resolve (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). We would only add that insofar as petitioner relies on the fact that he has not been returned to full duty since the shooting that allegedly caused his claimed post-traumatic stress disorder, his uninterrupted limited duty status was not on account of any recommendations by Police Department mental health professionals. It has been the consistent position of the Department’s Psychological Services Unit that petitioner can be returned to full duty with firearms. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 342, 831 N.Y.S.2d 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dittrich-v-board-of-trustees-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack