A New York appellate court has upheld a decision denying accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits to a police officer suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder. The ruling, issued on June 9, 2026, affects Peter Cacciatore, who sought benefits after a traumatic incident in the line of duty. This decision is significant as it clarifies the criteria for qualifying for ADR benefits in cases involving police officers.

The court’s ruling came in the case of Matter of Cacciatore v. Tisch, indexed under 161781/24. The court affirmed the previous ruling by the Supreme Court, New York County, which had dismissed Cacciatore's petition to annul the decision made by the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund. The court's decision is particularly relevant for police officers and other first responders who may be dealing with mental health issues stemming from their duties.

Background

Peter Cacciatore, the petitioner in this case, is a police officer who experienced a traumatic event on January 15, 2009. He responded to a scene where a fellow officer had been severely injured in a stabbing incident. Cacciatore's actions during the incident included holding his colleague's dislodged eye in its socket and applying pressure to his torso wound while trying to control the situation. This harrowing experience led to Cacciatore developing PTSD and major depressive disorder.

After years of struggling with his mental health, Cacciatore applied for ADR benefits, which are designed to assist officers who become disabled due to accidents that occur in the course of their duties. However, the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund denied his application on August 15, 2024, leading Cacciatore to file a legal challenge under CPLR article 78, which allows individuals to seek judicial review of administrative decisions.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which reviewed the case, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The judges involved in the ruling included Webber, J.P., Gesmer, Mendez, Rodriguez, and Hagler. The court referenced a previous case, stating, "Where, as here, the Board's determination is reached as a result of a tie vote, a reviewing court may not set aside [the Board's] denial of ADR benefits unless it can be determined as a matter of law on the record that the disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident."

The court found that the events Cacciatore experienced were not classified as