Farinella v. Pitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farinella v. Pitt

175 A.D.2d 977, 573 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11467

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

DecidedAugust 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 977 (Farinella v. Pitt) 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

Farinella v. Pitt, 175 A.D.2d 977, 573 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

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 Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for performance of duty retirement benefits.

In order for petitioner to be eligible for performance of duty [978]*978retirement benefits, petitioner must prove that, at the time his application was filed, he was physically incapacitated from performing his duties as a firefighter (see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c). The record contains conflicting medical opinions as to whether petitioner was permanently disabled on that date. It is within respondent Comptroller’s authority to evaluate and reject conflicting medical evidence (see, Matter of Huether v Regan, 169 AD2d 907), and the Comptroller is free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another (see, Matter of Rubinski v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys., 156 AD2d 888, 889). Here, James Holmblad testified that petitioner was capable of performing his duties as of the date of his examination. Accordingly, because the Comptroller’s determination denying petitioner’s application is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (see, supra).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.

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

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 Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for performance of duty retirement benefits.

In order for petitioner to be eligible for performance of duty [978]*978retirement benefits, petitioner must prove that, at the time his application was filed, he was physically incapacitated from performing his duties as a firefighter (see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c). The record contains conflicting medical opinions as to whether petitioner was permanently disabled on that date. It is within respondent Comptroller’s authority to evaluate and reject conflicting medical evidence (see, Matter of Huether v Regan, 169 AD2d 907), and the Comptroller is free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another (see, Matter of Rubinski v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys., 156 AD2d 888, 889). Here, James Holmblad testified that petitioner was capable of performing his duties as of the date of his examination. Accordingly, because the Comptroller’s determination denying petitioner’s application is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (see, supra).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 977, 573 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farinella-v-pitt-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack