Fasanaro v. County of Rockland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fasanaro v. County of Rockland

237 A.D.2d 436, 656 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2508

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 436 (Fasanaro v. County of Rockland) 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

Fasanaro v. County of Rockland, 237 A.D.2d 436, 656 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, in effect, review a determination of the appellant County of Rockland which denied the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland [437]*437County (Miller, J.), dated October 30, 1995, which, after a hearing, annulled the determination and directed the appellant to classify the petitioner’s disability as work-related and to grant the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find no merit to the various procedural arguments raised by the appellant. The parties charted their procedural course, and there is no reason to relieve the appellant of the resulting judgment (see, e.g., Too Pyo Hong v Byung Wha Yoo, 231 AD2d 657; D'Aloia v Travelers Ins. Co., 207 AD2d 820, affd 85 NY2d 825; Davis v Trey, 187 AD2d 409). Moreover, the evidence at the hearing supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur. [See, 166 Misc 2d 152.]

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, in effect, review a determination of the appellant County of Rockland which denied the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland [437]*437County (Miller, J.), dated October 30, 1995, which, after a hearing, annulled the determination and directed the appellant to classify the petitioner’s disability as work-related and to grant the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find no merit to the various procedural arguments raised by the appellant. The parties charted their procedural course, and there is no reason to relieve the appellant of the resulting judgment (see, e.g., Too Pyo Hong v Byung Wha Yoo, 231 AD2d 657; D'Aloia v Travelers Ins. Co., 207 AD2d 820, affd 85 NY2d 825; Davis v Trey, 187 AD2d 409). Moreover, the evidence at the hearing supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur. [See, 166 Misc 2d 152.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 436, 656 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fasanaro-v-county-of-rockland-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack