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: Anita Ryan, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond Kelly, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
_
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered January 6, 2016, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, dated August 17, 2013, which denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner failed to submit evidence showing that her disabling condition of systemic sclerosis, which is not recognized as a qualifying physical condition under the World Trade Center (WTC) law, was a “new onset disease” (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 2[36][c][v] ). Accordingly, petitioner has failed to show entitlement to the statutory presumption that her condition was caused by her exposure to toxins during her rescue and recovery work at the World Trade Center site (see Matter of Stavropoulos v. Bratton, 148 AD3d 449, 450–451, 454 [1 st Dept 2017] ).
Credible record evidence supported the Board of Trustees' determination, by a tied vote, that petitioner's condition was not caused by her work at the WTC site (see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1–B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 144–145 [1997] ). Indeed, petitioner's physicians all acknowledged that, while a link to environmental risk factors such as silica dust is suspected, the etiology of her condition remains unknown.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 4831
Decided: October 31, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)