IN RE DIANA TORRES, pet-res, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. Respondents-ap

8982-8983. IN RE DIANA TORRES, pet-res, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. Respondents-ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Keith M. Snow of counsel), for ap — Ungaro & Cifuni, New York (Nicholas Cifuni of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the petition to annul respondents' determination denying petitioner accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits and directed respondents to retire petitioner with ADR benefits retroactive to the date of petitioner's retirement, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order and judgment vacated, and the matter remanded to respondent Board of Trustees for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered October 12, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8982-8983. IN RE DIANA TORRES, pet-res, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. Respondents-ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Keith M. Snow of counsel), for ap — Ungaro & Cifuni, New York (Nicholas Cifuni of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the petition to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits and directed respondents to retire petitioner with ADR benefits retroactive to the date of petitioner’s retirement, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order and judgment vacated, and the matter remanded to respondent Board of Trustees for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered October 12, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Petitioner, a member of the New York City Police Department, applied for ADR benefits based on two incidents — one occurring on February 23, 2003, on her way to work, and the other occurring on October 10, 2003, while at the New York County District Attorney’s Office for a court appearance. In February 2009, petitioner applied for ADR benefits.

IN RE DIANA TORRES, pet-res, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. Respondents-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal