Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Paul DALTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 16, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents' determination denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits in consequence of a tie vote of respondent Board of Trustees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The application was properly denied since the line-of-duty occurrence found to have been the cause of petitioner's disability, i.e., petitioner's catching of his gunbelt on the door of his patrol vehicle and consequent twisting movement, was not a sudden unexpected event but an incident of his routine duties, the risk of which was evidently enhanced by petitioner's own adjustment of the patrol vehicle's seat for riding comfort, which admittedly made entering and exiting the vehicle more difficult (see Matter of Starnella v. Bratton, 92 N.Y.2d 836, 677 N.Y.S.2d 62, 699 N.E.2d 421 [1998]; Matter of McCambridge v. McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563, 479 N.Y.S.2d 171, 468 N.E.2d 9 [1984] ). While petitioner contends that his disability was caused by a prior line-of-duty incident, the Medical Board's determination to the contrary, which is supported by some credible evidence, including the circumstance that petitioner returned to full duty for two years after the prior incident, may not be disturbed (see Matter of Quill v. Ward, 138 A.D.2d 305, 526 N.Y.S.2d 815 [1988] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 15, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)