You are here: / / THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIRMENT SYSTEM DID NOT REBUT THE “WORLD...

THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIRMENT SYSTEM DID NOT REBUT THE “WORLD TRADE CENTER PRESUMPTION” THAT PETITIONER’S DEPRESSION WAS AGGRAVATED BY HIS EXPERIENCES ON 9-11; PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Comptroller, determined that the respondent New York State and Local Retirement System did not rebut the “World Trade Center presumption” that petitioner’s depression was aggravated by his experiences on 9-11:

Recognizing that there is no objective laboratory test to diagnose a mental health disorder like depression, if Fayer [respondent’s expert] was going to assert as fact that there are definitive biological reasons for petitioner’s qualifying condition — and that his depression would have reached the point of disability no matter the circumstances — it was incumbent upon Fayer, or the Retirement System generally, to provide some support for that far-reaching conclusion … . “Although the [World Trade Center] presumption is not a per se rule mandating enhanced accidental disability retirement benefits for first responders in all cases” … . in our view, accepting Fayer’s generalized conclusions, on their own, as adequate to rebut the statutory presumption afforded to petitioner — that his depression was in fact aggravated by his experiences on 9/11 — renders the existence of the presumption illusory. We therefore reverse the Comptroller’s finding that the Retirement System rebutted the World Trade Center presumption … . As a result, petitioner’s application for World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits must be granted (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 [g] [1] [a]). Matter of Fragola v DiNapoli, 2021 NY Slip Op 07596, Third Dept 12-30-21

 

You might also like
TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS BECAUSE CLAIMANT DID NOT OBTAIN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER’S CONSENT BEFORE SETTLING WITH A THIRD-PARTY (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE COUNTY, PLAINTIFF SUED ON A NEGLIGENCE THEORY ONLY; THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis
ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT).
THE ISSUANCE DATE OF A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DECISION BY A HEARING OFFICER IS THE DATE THE DECISION IS MAILED; THE 60-DAY APPEAL PERIOD STARTS RUNNING ON THE DATE OF MAILING; HERE DOCCS DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE DECISION WAS MAILED AND THEREFORE FAILED TO PROVE THE APPEAL WAS UNTIMELY; THE DATE STAMPED BY A POSTAGE METER IS NOT NECESSARILY THE DATE OF MAILING (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN A PRISON AS A VISITOR WHEN THERE WAS A CANINE ALERT TO DRUGS ON HER PERSON, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH THAT ANY QUESTIONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE FELT FREE TO LEAVE; BECAUSE THEY WERE CLOSE IN TIME, BOTH HER ORAL STATEMENT AND HER POST-MIRANDA WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD 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

DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE DID NOT HAVE HIS EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE... FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, ADD A PARTY TO THIS...