Harrison v. Scopetta

59 A.D.3d 545, 872 N.Y.S.2d 290

This text of 59 A.D.3d 545 (Harrison v. Scopetta) 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
Harrison v. Scopetta, 59 A.D.3d 545, 872 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, dated September 29, 2006, which denied the petitioner’s application for service-related accidental disability retirement benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated December 4, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The issue of whether a member of the New York City Fire Department is disabled is determined by the Medical Board of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Medical Board) (see Matter of Campbell v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 47 AD3d 926, 927 [2008]). The Medical Board’s determination that the member is not disabled for duty is conclusive if it is supported by some credible evidence and is not irrational (see Matter of Campbell v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 47 AD3d at 927; Matter of Clarke v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 46 AD3d 559 [2007]; Matter of Vastola v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 37 AD3d 478 [2007]; Matter of Vidal v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 32 AD3d 399 [2006]; Matter of Hession v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 23 AD3d 468 [2005]; Matter of Kuczinski v Board of Trustees of [546]*546N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 8 AD3d 283, 284 [2004]). Here, the Medical Board’s determination that the petitioner was not disabled for duty, based on the report of an examining neurosurgical consultant, is supported by some credible evidence and is not irrational (see Matter of Clarke v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 46 AD3d at 559-560; Matter of VastOla v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 37 AD3d at 479). Accordingly, the respondent Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund properly abided by that determination, and the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Covello and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kuczinski v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
8 A.D.3d 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hession v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
23 A.D.3d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Vidal v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
32 A.D.3d 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Vastola v. Board of Trustees
37 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Clarke v. Board of Trustees
46 A.D.3d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Campbell v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
47 A.D.3d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.3d 545, 872 N.Y.S.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-scopetta-nyappdiv-2009.