Vallas v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vallas v. Safir

304 A.D.2d 353, 757 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 4, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statutory presumption in petitioner’s favor that her heart condition, first diagnosed several years after she joined respondent Department’s employ in October 1990, was sustained as a result of her employment (see General Municipal Law § 207-k), was rebutted by evidence competent to support the Medical Board’s conclusion that petitioner suffered from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy unaccompanied by coronary artery disease or hypertension. Accordingly, petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits was properly denied (see Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 101 AD2d 768, 770 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1041 [1985] for reasons stated below). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 4, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent Board of Trustees denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statutory presumption in petitioner’s favor that her heart condition, first diagnosed several years after she joined respondent Department’s employ in October 1990, was sustained as a result of her employment (see General Municipal Law § 207-k), was rebutted by evidence competent to support the Medical Board’s conclusion that petitioner suffered from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy unaccompanied by coronary artery disease or hypertension. Accordingly, petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits was properly denied (see Matter of Goldman v McGuire, 101 AD2d 768, 770 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1041 [1985] for reasons stated below). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

Vallas v. Safir, 304 A.D.2d 353, 757 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 353 (Vallas v. Safir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related