Dysard v. McCall

222 A.D.2d 927, 635 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13368
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 927 (Dysard v. McCall) 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
Dysard v. McCall, 222 A.D.2d 927, 635 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits.

[928]*928On June 2, 1992, petitioner was terminated from her employment as a mental hygiene therapy aide. On June 24, 1992, she filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits which was subsequently denied on August 24, 1992. Thereafter, on November 12, 1992, petitioner filed an application for ordinary disability retirement benefits. This application was denied as untimely. Petitioner claims that she was misinformed as to when she was supposed to apply for ordinary disability retirement benefits and that, therefore, respondent’s determination denying her application is not supported by substantial evidence. Inasmuch as petitioner concedes that she was advised' by a personnel representative of her former employer that she could not file her application for ordinary disability retirement benefits until after a determination was made with respect to her application for accidental disability retirement benefits, we find petitioner’s argument to be without merit. Her application was clearly untimely as it was filed more than 90 days after her termination (see, Matter of Truly v Regan, 172 AD2d 966, 967-968; Matter of Williams v Regan, 145 AD2d 884, 885-886) and her late filing is not attributable to any actions by respondent. In view of this, respondent’s determination must be confirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Related

Carmody v. McCall
261 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 927, 635 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dysard-v-mccall-nyappdiv-1995.