Bruno v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bruno v. Safir

289 A.D.2d 113, 734 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12270

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 113 (Bruno v. Safir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruno v. Safir, 289 A.D.2d 113, 734 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered March 30, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for an accident disability retirement pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[114]*114The application to annul the determination, which was reached in consequence of a tie vote by respondent Board of Trustees, was properly denied since it cannot be determined as a matter of law that petitioner’s disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident (see, Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 352). Concur— Tom, J. P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered March 30, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for an accident disability retirement pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[114]*114The application to annul the determination, which was reached in consequence of a tie vote by respondent Board of Trustees, was properly denied since it cannot be determined as a matter of law that petitioner’s disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident (see, Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 352). Concur— Tom, J. P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 113, 734 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack