Cummings v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cummings v. Regan

78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14833

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 950 (Cummings v. Regan) 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

Cummings v. Regan, 78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller disapproving petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The petitioner’s application was denied upon the ground [951]*951that he failed to establish that he was incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a custodian. If the determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be confirmed (Matter of Chayut v Levitt, 70 AD2d 701). The record discloses that, although challenged on cross examination, the medical evidence offered on behalf of the retirement system to the effect that claimant was not suffering a disability from his employment related to his alleged accidental injury, supplies the needed substantial evidence. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller disapproving petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The petitioner’s application was denied upon the ground [951]*951that he failed to establish that he was incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a custodian. If the determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be confirmed (Matter of Chayut v Levitt, 70 AD2d 701). The record discloses that, although challenged on cross examination, the medical evidence offered on behalf of the retirement system to the effect that claimant was not suffering a disability from his employment related to his alleged accidental injury, supplies the needed substantial evidence. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-regan-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack