McNamara v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNamara v. Kelly

32 A.D.3d 747, 820 N.Y.S.2d 797

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 747 (McNamara 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

McNamara v. Kelly, 32 A.D.3d 747, 820 N.Y.S.2d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered January 10, 2005, which denied the petition to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-k (the Heart Bill), and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Objective medical evidence supports the Medical Board’s finding that petitioner’s cardiomyopathy is due to a mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction unrelated to his nonobstructive coronary artery disease or recently diagnosed and well-controlled hypertension, and suffices to rebut the statutory presumption that the cardiomyopathy is job related (see Matter of Seldon v Kelly, 21 AD3d 840 [2005]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and McGuire, 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 January 10, 2005, which denied the petition to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-k (the Heart Bill), and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Objective medical evidence supports the Medical Board’s finding that petitioner’s cardiomyopathy is due to a mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction unrelated to his nonobstructive coronary artery disease or recently diagnosed and well-controlled hypertension, and suffices to rebut the statutory presumption that the cardiomyopathy is job related (see Matter of Seldon v Kelly, 21 AD3d 840 [2005]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 747, 820 N.Y.S.2d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack