Finkelstein v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkelstein v. Kelly

41 A.D.3d 122, 835 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedJune 5, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 122 (Finkelstein v. Kelly) 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

Finkelstein v. Kelly, 41 A.D.3d 122, 835 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[123]*123Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered March 1, 2006, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying an accidental disability retirement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Medical Board’s finding that petitioner is not disabled is supported by some credible evidence (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]), including its own physical examinations of petitioner (see Matter of Goffred v Kelly, 13 AD3d 72 [2004]) showing normal reflexes and no weakness or atrophy, and MRI reports showing no significant neural compromise or nerve root involvement. The record shows that the Board properly considered petitioner’s conflicting medical evidence (see Borenstein, 88 NY2d at 761; Goffred, 13 AD3d at 73). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

[123]*123Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered March 1, 2006, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying an accidental disability retirement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Medical Board’s finding that petitioner is not disabled is supported by some credible evidence (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]), including its own physical examinations of petitioner (see Matter of Goffred v Kelly, 13 AD3d 72 [2004]) showing normal reflexes and no weakness or atrophy, and MRI reports showing no significant neural compromise or nerve root involvement. The record shows that the Board properly considered petitioner’s conflicting medical evidence (see Borenstein, 88 NY2d at 761; Goffred, 13 AD3d at 73). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 122, 835 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkelstein-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack