You are here: / / POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED...

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11.

The First Department, in an extensive decision, determined petitioner, a police officer who worked over 100 hours at the World Trade Center (WTC) beginning on September 11, 2001, was not entitled to accident disability retirement benefits (ADR) based upon pulmonary hypertension. There was no showing the pulmonary hypertension was related to the time spent at the WTC:

The record establishes that, long before the events of September 11, 2001, petitioner suffered from a number of medical conditions that are risk factors for the development of pulmonary hypertension. * * *

The record is devoid of any medical study linking exposure to WTC site contaminants to pulmonary hypertension, nor does it contain any evidence that other WTC site responders have been diagnosed with this condition in numbers greater than would be predicted from general epidemiological experience. Matter of Stavropoulos v Bratton, 2017 NY Slip Op 01779, 1st Dept 3-9-17

 

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)/WORLD TRADE CENTER (9-11) (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)/POLICE OFFICERS (9-11, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)/HYPERTENSION (9-11, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11)

You might also like
REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE, WAS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF THE COVID PANDEMIC DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR RESPONSES TO FOIL REQUESTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION DEFENDANT’S FRIEND PAID DEFENDANT’S LEGAL FEES CREATING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN WHERE EVIDENCE OF AN UNCHARGED CRIME IS “INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED” WITH THE NARRATIVE OF CHARGED CRIME, IT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT A PRIOR UNCHARGED SEX ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY’S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPTICAL CONFUSION OBSCURED A STEP, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN AN UNCERTIFIED, UNAUTHENTICATED REPORT FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS PROVIDED DID NOT CREATE AN ISSUE OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S... PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES...