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
COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE SANCTIONED; THE JUDGE DID NOT INDICATE WHY THE AMOUNT OF THE SANCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, $100 SANCTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE SECURITY COMPANY WERE PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVERE INJURIES CAUSED BY TWELVE-YEAR-OLD BOYS WHO THREW A SHOPPING CART OVER A FOURTH FLOOR RAILING STRIKING PLAINTIFF ON THE GROUND BELOW (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF COLLATERAL TO THE MAJORITY LENDERS WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE MINORITY LENDERS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN THIS PRIVATE FORECLOSURE; THE MINORITY LENDERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION WAS MADE IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, MATTER REMANDED FOR A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND IS NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance).
Spoliation of Evidence.

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...