New York Court of Appeals, 2001

Leggio v. Suffolk County Police Department

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 14, 2001

96 N.Y.2d 846; 754 N.E.2d 766; 729 N.Y.S.2d 664; 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1498

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of McLaurin v. New York City Tr. Auth. (N.Y. 2025)
Matter of Croom v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Matter of Anderson v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Sakanovic v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Barry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Meagher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Claim of Pinto v. Southport Correctional Facility (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Claim of Pecora v. County of Westchester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Claim of Bottieri v. Travelers Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of Leggio v. Suffolk County Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*847OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board awarding benefits and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court.

Claimant, a former 911 operator, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that work-related stress caused her to suffer depression and ultimately leave her job. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that claimant did not sustain an accidental work-related injury because the stress she was exposed to as a result of the rotating-shift schedule was not more than that normally encountered in the workplace (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 [7]). The Appellate Division divided on whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination, three Justices concluding it does not and two that it does.* We agree with the dissenting Justices that the Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and is therefore binding on the courts (see, Matter of Hill v Thompson, 61 NY2d 1018, 1019).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur in memorandum.

Decision appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.

This appeal brings up for review the Appellate Division order reversing the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board. Upon reversal, the Board subsequently concluded that claimant had a work-related injury and awarded benefits.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.