Quevedo v. Office of New York State Comptroller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quevedo v. Office of New York State Comptroller

101 A.D.3d 1209, 955 N.Y.2d 440

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 2012·Published

Opinion

Kavanagh, J.

Because petitioner had less than 10 years of service credit at the time he applied for disability retirement benefits, he was obliged to prove that his disability was “the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by his own willful negligence sustained in the performance of his duties” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 605 [b] [3]; see Matter of Gonzalez v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 79 AD3d 1562, 1563 [2010]). The Comptroller’s determination on the issue of causal relationship will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record and, in that regard, he credited the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Edward Toriello that petitioner’s disability was unrelated to the attack (see Matter of Hilson v Hevesi, 16 AD3d 895, 895 [2005]; Matter of Paront v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 205 AD2d 1008, 1009 [1994]). Indeed, after examining petitioner and reviewing his medical records, Toriello concluded that petitioner’s disabil[1210]*1210ity stemmed from degenerative changes caused by his obesity. While medical evidence to the contrary was presented, the Comptroller was free to rely upon Toriello’s opinion and, thus, substantial evidence supports the determination at issue (see Matter of Hilson v Hevesi, 16 AD3d at 895-896).

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

Kavanagh, J.

Because petitioner had less than 10 years of service credit at the time he applied for disability retirement benefits, he was obliged to prove that his disability was “the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by his own willful negligence sustained in the performance of his duties” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 605 [b] [3]; see Matter of Gonzalez v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 79 AD3d 1562, 1563 [2010]). The Comptroller’s determination on the issue of causal relationship will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record and, in that regard, he credited the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Edward Toriello that petitioner’s disability was unrelated to the attack (see Matter of Hilson v Hevesi, 16 AD3d 895, 895 [2005]; Matter of Paront v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 205 AD2d 1008, 1009 [1994]). Indeed, after examining petitioner and reviewing his medical records, Toriello concluded that petitioner’s disabil[1210]*1210ity stemmed from degenerative changes caused by his obesity. While medical evidence to the contrary was presented, the Comptroller was free to rely upon Toriello’s opinion and, thus, substantial evidence supports the determination at issue (see Matter of Hilson v Hevesi, 16 AD3d at 895-896).

Quevedo v. Office of New York State Comptroller, 101 A.D.3d 1209, 955 N.Y.2d 440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

101 A.D.3d 1209 (Quevedo v. Office of New York State Comptroller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related