Matter of Colon v Kelly

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Colon v Kelly 2011 NY Slip Op 32602(U) October 4, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 105994/2011 Judge: Joan B. Lobis Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] I /CoLoN* vs MOTION CAL. NO. - 1 ARTICLE 7 0 I I : - _ IYULICV UT iviorionl Roplying Affidnvits tliis inotion to/for PAPEQ$ NUMBEREO . - UrOer to Show Cause Answering Affrdavlts - Exhibits ~ - _ _ - - Affldavlts I _ I - - Extlihlts i 1 Yes ... I -35/ - ^ --- - Cross-Motion: 4 MOTION SEO. N O . j KELLY, RAYMOND I SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 - ?r/m!\ MOTION DATE ' ; Y N0 L.- Upon the foregoing papers, it Is ordered that this motion 1416). 'i - . ) ,// ' , / Check one: 1 *FINAL Check if appropriate: i DISPOSITION a\s (j J . S . C. 1 DO NOT POST ! SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. A\\ / - - I- I:.] REFERENCE SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY --.----------------_------------------- ---------------------------- X In the Matter of the Application of Index No. 105994111 LISA COLON, as WIDOW of DECEDENT WILLIAM TITUS, Jlecilpfon. Order. and JuQgmeot Petitioner, - against RAYMOND KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article LI, Kevin iy Holloran, as Executive Director of the New York C t Police Pension Fund, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the Police Pension Fund, Article I1 and THE CITY OF UNFILED JUDGMENT NEW Y O N , This judgment has not becm entered by he C o Clerk Wb and notice of entry cannut b e served based d. To Respondents. obtain entry, counsel or authorized representative must appear in person at h e Judgmen! Clark s Desk (Room For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78, CPLR,to revidaiB). and annul the determination made by respondents denying petitioner a pension payable under the provisions of the Administrative Code 0 13-244, the General Municipal Law 208-f, as applicable to NYC Administrative Code 8 13-252.1(3) (The World Trade Center Death Benefit, Chapter 445 of the Laws of 2006), and an Accidental Death Benefit pursuant to NYC Administrative Code § 13-244, for a hrther order directing payment of such and pension retroactive to the day after the date of decedent s death, and for such other appropriate relief. X --__1___________ _-___________________I_-------------*------------ JOAN B. LOBIS, J.S.C.: Petitioner Lisa Colon, as the widow and beneficiary of Detective William Titus, brings this proceeding under Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. seeking an order annulling the decision of respondent The Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund (the PPF ), which denied petitioner an accidental death benefit ( , D or, in the alternative, ordering a new hearing on the issue of her ,A,) entitlement to ADB. In addition, petitioner seeks an order compelling respondents production of [* 3] certain records; however, that branch of the petition is moot based on the documents annexed to respondents papers. Respondents oppose the petition. This is petitioner s second petition to the undersigned for this relief. By decision and order dated May 15, 2010, the court granted the first petition to the extent of remanding her application for ADB to the New York Police Department s ( NYPD ) Medical Board to set forth a non-conclusory, scientific basis for its denial of ADB (the May Decision"). &g re Colon v. Kelly, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 31211(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. 2010) (filed under Index Number 117992109). A brief recitation of facts is warranted, Titus, petitioner s spouse, was a detective with the NYPD. After September 11, 2001, Titus performed rescue, recovery, and clean-up operations at Ground Zero for over forty hours. In May 2002, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer after his physician discovered a 4 crn mass at his gastroesophagealjunction. Titus succurnbcd to the cancer on August 24,2003. The Medical Board denied petitioner s first application far ADB setting forth that the size of the tumor at thc time it was biopsied and the length of time prior to the cancer diagnosis that Titus w s symptomatic led them to conclude that the cancer was not caused nor aggravated by a exposure to airbornc toxins at Ground Zero. After I remanded the application for hrther consideration, the Medical Board again denied the ADB request. The Medical Board reiterated its conclusion that, based on the size of the tumor, Titus cmcer predated his work at Ground Zero. The -2- [* 4] Medical Board, without referencing any scientific studies, also asserted that asbestos is not known to exacerbate esophageal cancer. The Medical Board did not mention the possible cancerous effects of any other substance. In an nrticle 78 proceeding challenging the disability determination, thc Medical Board s finding will be sustained unless it lacks rational basis, or is arbitrary or capricious. -IY.c.s, Ret. Svs., 88 N.Y.2d 756, 760 (1996) (citations omitted). ADB is available to a surviving spouse of a deceased police officer when evidence demonstrates that the death was caused by an accident, which occurred in the line of duty, and that the death was not the result of willful negligence on the part of the applicant. Administrative Code of City of New York ( Administrative Code ) 1 3 - 2 4 . If the applicant for ADB claims that the officer died due to his or her efforts during the WTC rescue, recovery, nnd clean-up operations, Section 13-252,lof the Administrative Code allows for what is commonly known as the WTC presumption. The presumption states, in pertinenl part, that any member of the NYPD who participated in the WTC rescue, recovery, or clean-up operations and who later dies fiom a qualifying World Trade Center condition. . . unless the contrary be proven by competent evidence . , . shall be deemed to have died as a natural and proximate result of an accident sustained in the performance of duty and not as a result of willful negligence on his or her part. Administrative Code 4 13-252.1(3). Respondents have the burden of proffering credible evidence to rebut the WTC presumption. la rc B v. Bd. of Trs., 86 A.D.3d 427 ( 1 st Dep t 201 1). Courts have annulled dctcrrninations of the Medical Board that were premised only on a summary conclusion of no causation and lacked any factual basis. In re M e w v, Bd, of Trs,, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 147 (1997)(citations omitted). -3- Indeed, the [* 5] Medical Board cannot merely assert that the size of the tumor meant it began growing before September 1 1,201 1 without the support of credible evidence. Bitchatchi, 86 A.D.3d at 427-28. Nor CEUI the Medical Board rely on mereconjecture or unsupported suspicion. Mulever, 90 N.Y.2d at 147 (citations omitted). Petitioner argues that respondents decision to deny ADB was not based on any competent or credible evidence. Petitioner further asserts that respondents both failed to address evidence that supports her claim that Titus cancer was caused by his operations at Ground Zero and failed to address the holdings in the May Decision. Petitioner contends that respondents conclusory decision to deny her ADB cannot stand. Respondents answer and assert that the Medical Board s determination was based on crtdiblc evidence that demonstrated that Titus esophageal cancer was neither caused nor exacerbated by his work at around Zero. Respondents maintain that the Medical Board relied on its own expertise to conclude that cancer grows over a period of years and not months, therefore exposure at around Zero, if any, during September 2001 would not cause cancer in May 2002. Respondents further maintain that the Medical Board properly relied on its own expertise it opining that asbestos does not exacerbate esophageal cancer and that none of Mr. Titus physicians suggested the opposite. Here, once again, the Medical Board failed to set forth any evidence to support its conclusions about tumor growth; failed to cite m y scientific support for its conclusions about -4- [* 6]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.