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: Nicholas VISCONTI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered May 15, 2006, dismissing this proceeding to annul respondents' denial of accident disability retirement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner sustained back injuries in a 1994 line-of-duty accident and a 1999 line-of-duty incident while removing a spare tire from a police vehicle, the latter of which was not an “accident” for pension purposes (see Matter of Menna v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 59 N.Y.2d 696, 463 N.Y.S.2d 438, 450 N.E.2d 244 [1983] ).
The Board of Trustees' determination in 2004 that the 1999 injury was the competent causal factor of petitioner's disability was supported by some credible evidence, and its ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 N.Y.2d 756, 760-761, 650 N.Y.S.2d 614, 673 N.E.2d 899 [1996] ).
After reevaluating its position as to the cause of petitioner's disability, in light of the gap in treatment between the two injuries, the Medical Board concluded that the 1999 injury was the competent causal factor. This finding is supported by petitioner's conservative treatment for the 1994 injury, the subsequent gap in treatment, and his return to full duty (see Matter of Doyle v. Kelly, 8 A.D.3d 125, 126, 779 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2004]; Matter of Calzerano v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Pension Fund, Art. II, 245 A.D.2d 84, 664 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1997] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 04, 2008
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)