Christiano v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christiano v. Safir

266 A.D.2d 36, 698 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11368

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 36 (Christiano 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

Christiano v. Safir, 266 A.D.2d 36, 698 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered October 17, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying his request for accident disability retirement benefits and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ Medical Board found that petitioner’s disability arose out of a congenital degenerative arthritic condition rather than a line of duty accident, and as the Medical Board’s findings were supported by some credible evidence, the ensuing determination of respondent’s Board of Trustees, in reliance upon the Medical Board’s findings, to deny petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, may not be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 761). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered October 17, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying his request for accident disability retirement benefits and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ Medical Board found that petitioner’s disability arose out of a congenital degenerative arthritic condition rather than a line of duty accident, and as the Medical Board’s findings were supported by some credible evidence, the ensuing determination of respondent’s Board of Trustees, in reliance upon the Medical Board’s findings, to deny petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, may not be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 761). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 36, 698 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christiano-v-safir-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack