DeNaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeNaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

265 A.D.2d 215, 696 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10496

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 215 (DeNaro 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

DeNaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 265 A.D.2d 215, 696 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about April 24, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying him accident disability retirement benefits and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner is not disabled Is supported by credible evidence, including the Medical Board’s examination of petitioner (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). Petitioner’s medical evidence, reviewed by the Medical Board, was subject to conflicting interpretations which the Board alone had the authority to resolve (supra, at 761; Matter of Reid v Kelly, 235 AD2d 361). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, 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 (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about April 24, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying him accident disability retirement benefits and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner is not disabled Is supported by credible evidence, including the Medical Board’s examination of petitioner (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). Petitioner’s medical evidence, reviewed by the Medical Board, was subject to conflicting interpretations which the Board alone had the authority to resolve (supra, at 761; Matter of Reid v Kelly, 235 AD2d 361). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 215, 696 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denaro-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack