O'Hagan v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund

New York Court of Appeals

O'Hagan v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund

431 N.E.2d 974, 55 N.Y.2d 784, 447 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3305

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 431 N.E.2d 974 (O'Hagan v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Hagan v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, 431 N.E.2d 974, 55 N.Y.2d 784, 447 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3305 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. It was proper for the Appellate Division to remand the matter to respondent board of trustees for a fair consideration of petitioner’s application, there being no reason to presume that an unbiased board would not properly consider the merits of the application. In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether petitioner’s hearing loss, sustained over a period of time, may be considered an accidental injury within the meaning of section B19-7.84 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. It was proper for the Appellate Division to remand the matter to respondent board of trustees for a fair consideration of petitioner’s application, there being no reason to presume that an unbiased board would not properly consider the merits of the application. In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether petitioner’s hearing loss, sustained over a period of time, may be considered an accidental injury within the meaning of section B19-7.84 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 N.E.2d 974, 55 N.Y.2d 784, 447 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohagan-v-board-of-trustees-of-the-new-york-city-fire-department-pension-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack