Devoe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Devoe v. City of New York

259 A.D.2d 336, 687 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 336 (Devoe v. City of New York) 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

Devoe v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 336, 687 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 17, 1997, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Teachers’ Retirement System Board of Trustees denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While petitioner contends that, during her employment as a teacher’s aide, she hurt her back lifting a student from a wheelchair, respondent Board of Trustees was entitled, in view of the conflicting medical opinions as to the cause and extent of petitioner’s claimed line-of-duty disability, to rely upon the opinion of its independent medical consultants that petitioner’s back condition was not disabling and was not, in any case, a precipitant of her subsequent disability (see, Matter of Tobin v Steisel, 64 NY2d 254, 258-259). Moreover, even if petitioner’s injury had been sustained as alleged, respondent’s determination that the injury would not have been attributable to an accident, but rather to petitioner’s performance of her normal duties as a teacher’s aide, was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 17, 1997, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Teachers’ Retirement System Board of Trustees denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While petitioner contends that, during her employment as a teacher’s aide, she hurt her back lifting a student from a wheelchair, respondent Board of Trustees was entitled, in view of the conflicting medical opinions as to the cause and extent of petitioner’s claimed line-of-duty disability, to rely upon the opinion of its independent medical consultants that petitioner’s back condition was not disabling and was not, in any case, a precipitant of her subsequent disability (see, Matter of Tobin v Steisel, 64 NY2d 254, 258-259). Moreover, even if petitioner’s injury had been sustained as alleged, respondent’s determination that the injury would not have been attributable to an accident, but rather to petitioner’s performance of her normal duties as a teacher’s aide, was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 336, 687 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devoe-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack