Matter of Anastasio v. Kelly

121 A.D.3d 466, 993 N.Y.S.2d 497
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 9, 2014
Docket13137 101014/11
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 466 (Matter of Anastasio 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
Matter of Anastasio v. Kelly, 121 A.D.3d 466, 993 N.Y.S.2d 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered May 7, 2013, which denied the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated October 14, 2010, denying petitioner’s application for World Trade Center (WTC) accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner challenges respondents’ determination that he did not establish that his disabling condition, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), is a “[qualifying physical condition,” as defined by Retirement and Social Security Law § 2 (36) (c) (v). Although petitioner’s physicians opined that his CFS, which was diagnosed in about 2007, was related to his WTC exposure, credible evidence supports respondents’ conclusion that it was causally related to two other physical conditions, mononucleosis and an acute viral infection caused by the Epstein-Barr virus, both unrelated to his WTC exposure (see Administrative Code of *467 City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]; Matter of Bitchatchi v Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Police Dept. Pension Fund, Art. II, 20 NY3d 268 [2012]; Matter of Quinn v Kelly, 92 AD3d 589 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813 [2012]; see also Matter of Brennan v Kelly, 111 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]). Furthermore, even assuming that petitioner’s condition was considered a “qualifying” condition, the evidence supports the finding that his past viral infections were sufficient to rebut any presumption of causation.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Fein man, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Stavropoulos v. Bratton
2017 NY Slip Op 1779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.3d 466, 993 N.Y.S.2d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-anastasio-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2014.