Demarco v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Demarco v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

211 A.D.2d 594, 621 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 594 (Demarco 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

Demarco v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 211 A.D.2d 594, 621 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Williams, J.), entered November 12, 1993, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner’s conflicting [595]*595medical evidence notwithstanding, respondents’ determination that petitioner is not disabled was based on competent and sufficient medical evidence and was not otherwise arbitrary and capricious. It was for the Medical Board to resolve the conflict in medical opinion as to the existence of disability (see, Matter of Cassidy v Ward, 169 AD2d 482), and the Board of Trustees was bound by the Medical Board’s determination in that regard (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 351). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, 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 (Milton Williams, J.), entered November 12, 1993, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner’s conflicting [595]*595medical evidence notwithstanding, respondents’ determination that petitioner is not disabled was based on competent and sufficient medical evidence and was not otherwise arbitrary and capricious. It was for the Medical Board to resolve the conflict in medical opinion as to the existence of disability (see, Matter of Cassidy v Ward, 169 AD2d 482), and the Board of Trustees was bound by the Medical Board’s determination in that regard (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 351). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 594, 621 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demarco-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack