Dabney v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dabney v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

256 A.D.2d 86, 681 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13085

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 86 (Dabney v. New York City Employees' Retirement System) 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

Dabney v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 256 A.D.2d 86, 681 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered October 14, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ denial of her application for an accident disability retirement pension and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination was properly sustained on the ground that the Medical Board’s finding that petitioner is not disabled is based on “some credible evidence”, namely, its examination of petitioner and its review of conflicting medical evidence from her treating physicians, and that the earlier disability finding of the Social Security Administration does not prevent the Board from reaching its own contrary conclusion based on the evidence before it (Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761; [87]*87Matter of Reid v Kelly, 235 AD2d 361). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered October 14, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ denial of her application for an accident disability retirement pension and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination was properly sustained on the ground that the Medical Board’s finding that petitioner is not disabled is based on “some credible evidence”, namely, its examination of petitioner and its review of conflicting medical evidence from her treating physicians, and that the earlier disability finding of the Social Security Administration does not prevent the Board from reaching its own contrary conclusion based on the evidence before it (Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761; [87]*87Matter of Reid v Kelly, 235 AD2d 361). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 86, 681 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dabney-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack