Gaillard v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaillard v. Safir

253 A.D.2d 679, 677 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9610

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 679 (Gaillard v. Safir) 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

Gaillard v. Safir, 253 A.D.2d 679, 677 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 11, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accidental disability pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the Medical Board’s finding that petitioner has a disabling rheumatologic disorder. The Board of Trustees was entitled to rely on the Medical Board’s opinion that such disorder cannot be attributed to any one or combination of petitioner’s line of duty injuries (see, Matter of Drayson v Board of Trustees, 37 AD2d 378, 381, affd 32 NY2d 852; Matter of Simmons v Herkommer, 62 NY2d 711; cf., Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees, 90 NY2d 139, 148-152). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 11, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accidental disability pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the Medical Board’s finding that petitioner has a disabling rheumatologic disorder. The Board of Trustees was entitled to rely on the Medical Board’s opinion that such disorder cannot be attributed to any one or combination of petitioner’s line of duty injuries (see, Matter of Drayson v Board of Trustees, 37 AD2d 378, 381, affd 32 NY2d 852; Matter of Simmons v Herkommer, 62 NY2d 711; cf., Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees, 90 NY2d 139, 148-152). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 679, 677 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaillard-v-safir-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack