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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] Matter 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] Matter of Reid v Kelly, 235 AD2d 361). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

256 A.D.2d 86 (Dabney v. New York City Employees' Retirement System) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related