Hutnik v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hutnik v. Kelly

37 A.D.3d 346, 830 N.Y.S.2d 138

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 346 (Hutnik 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

Hutnik v. Kelly, 37 A.D.3d 346, 830 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered September 28, 2005, which denied petitioner’s police officer’s application to annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statutory presumption in petitioner’s favor that his cardiomyopathy is service related (General Municipal Law § 207-k) was rebutted by credible evidence that petitioner, contrary to the opinion of his doctor, does not suffer from hypertension, and the absence of any evidence, or indeed claim, of any other possible cause for the condition (see Matter of Vallas v Safir, 304 AD2d 353 [2003]; Matter of Seldon v Kelly, 21 AD3d 840 [2005]). 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 (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered September 28, 2005, which denied petitioner’s police officer’s application to annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statutory presumption in petitioner’s favor that his cardiomyopathy is service related (General Municipal Law § 207-k) was rebutted by credible evidence that petitioner, contrary to the opinion of his doctor, does not suffer from hypertension, and the absence of any evidence, or indeed claim, of any other possible cause for the condition (see Matter of Vallas v Safir, 304 AD2d 353 [2003]; Matter of Seldon v Kelly, 21 AD3d 840 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 346, 830 N.Y.S.2d 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutnik-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack