Cook v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cook v. City of Utica

216 A.D.2d 944, 629 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7294

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 944 (Cook v. City of Utica) 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

Cook v. City of Utica, 216 A.D.2d 944, 629 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled on the law with costs, petition granted and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the Comptroller granted petitioner’s application for performance of duty disability retirement, respondents improperly denied petitioner’s application for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) on the ground that petitioner is not disabled as a result of his performance of duties as a firefighter (see, Matter of Putnam v City of Watertown, 213 AD2d 974; Matter of Dembowski v La Polla, 213 AD2d 972; Matter of Pidel v City of Yonkers, 208 AD2d 845). We, therefore, annul respondents’ determination, grant the petition and remit the matter to respondents to determine the amount of benefits owed to petitioner pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously annulled on the law with costs, petition granted and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the Comptroller granted petitioner’s application for performance of duty disability retirement, respondents improperly denied petitioner’s application for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) on the ground that petitioner is not disabled as a result of his performance of duties as a firefighter (see, Matter of Putnam v City of Watertown, 213 AD2d 974; Matter of Dembowski v La Polla, 213 AD2d 972; Matter of Pidel v City of Yonkers, 208 AD2d 845). We, therefore, annul respondents’ determination, grant the petition and remit the matter to respondents to determine the amount of benefits owed to petitioner pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 944, 629 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack