Hoehl v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoehl v. Kelly

4 A.D.3d 228, 772 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1840

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 228 (Hoehl 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

Hoehl v. Kelly, 4 A.D.3d 228, 772 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[229]*229Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered April 4, 2003, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondents’ denial of the application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner’s hearing loss had been sustained over a long period of time, caused by routine performance of his duties in controlling crowds at parades and other events, was supported by credible medical evidence, including notations in petitioner’s own medical file, and his interview and examination by the Medical Board. Such a risk inherent in one’s regular duties does not constitute the sudden and unexpected event necessary for a determination of accident disability (Matter of Murphy v Bratton, 225 AD2d 411 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 816 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, PJ., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

[229]*229Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered April 4, 2003, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondents’ denial of the application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner’s hearing loss had been sustained over a long period of time, caused by routine performance of his duties in controlling crowds at parades and other events, was supported by credible medical evidence, including notations in petitioner’s own medical file, and his interview and examination by the Medical Board. Such a risk inherent in one’s regular duties does not constitute the sudden and unexpected event necessary for a determination of accident disability (Matter of Murphy v Bratton, 225 AD2d 411 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 816 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, PJ., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 228, 772 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoehl-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack