Creegan v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Creegan v. Board of Trustees

7 A.D.3d 335, 775 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759

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

DecidedMay 13, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 335 (Creegan v. Board of Trustees) 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

Creegan v. Board of Trustees, 7 A.D.3d 335, 775 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Roslyn Richter, J.), entered June 11, 2003, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as there was abundant credible evidence to support the Medical Board’s determination that petitioner was not disabled from performing his duties as a police officer, there is no ground for judicially disturbing its determination denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). The record amply discloses that the Medical Board’s determination was based on, and indeed rationally supported by, its review of numerous diagnostic tests which petitioner submitted, including echocardiograms and stress tests, and its interview and physical examination of him. It does not avail petitioner in the context of this proceeding that there was some minimal conflicting evidence before the board from which a different interpretation was urged because “we must defer to the expertise of the Medical Board in resolving such conflict[s] . . .” (Mulheren v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 307 AD2d 129, 131 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]; see also Matter of Borenstein, supra at 761). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Roslyn Richter, J.), entered June 11, 2003, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as there was abundant credible evidence to support the Medical Board’s determination that petitioner was not disabled from performing his duties as a police officer, there is no ground for judicially disturbing its determination denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]). The record amply discloses that the Medical Board’s determination was based on, and indeed rationally supported by, its review of numerous diagnostic tests which petitioner submitted, including echocardiograms and stress tests, and its interview and physical examination of him. It does not avail petitioner in the context of this proceeding that there was some minimal conflicting evidence before the board from which a different interpretation was urged because “we must defer to the expertise of the Medical Board in resolving such conflict[s] . . .” (Mulheren v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 307 AD2d 129, 131 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]; see also Matter of Borenstein, supra at 761). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 335, 775 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/creegan-v-board-of-trustees-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack