From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Petchonka v. Bd. of Tr. of N.Y. City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1994
204 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 23, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

When there is a tie vote of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department in determining whether accident disability retirement is appropriate, the Board of Trustees must retire the applicant on an ordinary disability pension (see, Matter of City of New York v. Schoeck, 294 N.Y. 559), and the Board's decision can be set aside on judicial review only if it can be determined as a matter of law on the record that the disability was a natural and proximate result of a service-related accident (see, Matter of Bridgwood v. Board of Trustees, 204 A.D.2d 629 [decided herewith]; Matter of Flynn v Board of Trustees, 201 A.D.2d 730; see also, Matter of Causarano v. Board of Trustees, 178 A.D.2d 474). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that, as a matter of law, a causal relationship exists between a line of duty accident and the claimed disability (see, Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012; see also, Matter of Nicolosi v Board of Trustees, 198 A.D.2d 282).

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, he has not met his burden of proving a causal connection, as a matter of law, between a line of duty accident and his disabling condition. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see, Matter of Scotto v. Board of Trustees, 76 A.D.2d 774, 775, affd 54 N.Y.2d 918; see also, Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Board of Trustees, 203 A.D.2d 460; Matter of Hodges v. Board of Trustees, 203 A.D.2d 365). The determination under review was not arbitrary and capricious because the determination was based upon a comprehensive review of this matter by the Medical Board and the Board of Trustees (see, Matter of Bartsch v Board of Trustees, 142 A.D.2d 577), and there was substantial medical evidence that the petitioner's disabling back condition was of nontraumatic origin (see, Matter of Russo v. Board of Trustees, 143 A.D.2d 674, 676). Lawrence, J.P., Ritter, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Petchonka v. Bd. of Tr. of N.Y. City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1994
204 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Petchonka v. Bd. of Tr. of N.Y. City

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PETER PETCHONKA, Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 23, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 622

Citing Cases

Matter of Regan v. Board of Trustees

In light of the conflicting medical evidence in the record, the circumstances admit more than one inference…

Matter of Lacker v. Bd. of Trustees of N.Y

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The Medical Board of the New York City Fire Department,…