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: Alfred CANONICO, 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 December 2, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondents' disapproval of a request for an accident disability pension, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Medical Board's determination that petitioner police officer's seizure disorder was not caused by his line-of-duty injury suffered in August 1998 was based on “some credible evidence” (Matter of Drayson v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of N.Y., 37 A.D.2d 378, 380, 326 N.Y.S.2d 328 [1971], affd. 32 N.Y.2d 852, 346 N.Y.S.2d 273, 299 N.E.2d 684 [1973] ). Although several doctors indicated that petitioner's condition likely resulted from the line-of-duty incident, the Medical Board was not required to credit such opinions (see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 N.Y.2d 756, 761, 650 N.Y.S.2d 614, 673 N.E.2d 899 [1996] ), especially since petitioner's original line-of-duty report and emergency room record failed to mention any head injury or complaints of headaches that petitioner later claimed and petitioner failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence of such an injury or complaints (see Matter of Danyi v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Employees' Retirement Sys., 176 A.D.2d 451, 574 N.Y.S.2d 353 [1991]; see also Matter of Hallihan v. Ward, 169 A.D.2d 542, 564 N.Y.S.2d 395 [1991] ). Furthermore, NYPD's surgeon twice disapproved petitioner's application to amend his original line-of-duty report to include a head injury and complaints of headaches.
The Board of Trustees' decision to rely on the Medical Board's recommendations to deny “accidental” and approve “ordinary” disability retirement was neither arbitrary nor capricious (Drayson, 37 A.D.2d at 381, 326 N.Y.S.2d 328).
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 27, 2007
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)