Matter of Titza v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Titza v. Kelly

138 A.D.3d 498, 28 N.Y.S.3d 303

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

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket793 111177/11

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 498 (Matter of Titza 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 Titza v. Kelly, 138 A.D.3d 498, 28 N.Y.S.3d 303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2014, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statutory presumption in petitioner’s favor that his strokes were service related (General Municipal Law § 207-k) was rebutted by credible evidence that the etiology of his strokes was unknown, petitioner does not suffer from coronary artery disease, and there was no evidence of hypertension (see Matter of Hogg v Kelly, 93 AD3d 507 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 101 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 1041 [1985]; see also Matter of Walsh v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Dept. Pension Fund, Art. II, 37 AD3d 370 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2014, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statutory presumption in petitioner’s favor that his strokes were service related (General Municipal Law § 207-k) was rebutted by credible evidence that the etiology of his strokes was unknown, petitioner does not suffer from coronary artery disease, and there was no evidence of hypertension (see Matter of Hogg v Kelly, 93 AD3d 507 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 101 AD2d 768 [1st Dept 1984], affd 64 NY2d 1041 [1985]; see also Matter of Walsh v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Dept. Pension Fund, Art. II, 37 AD3d 370 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 498, 28 N.Y.S.3d 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-titza-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack