Harris v. Safir

284 A.D.2d 220, 726 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 220 (Harris 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
Harris v. Safir, 284 A.D.2d 220, 726 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application, brought pursuant [221]*221to CPLR article 78, to annul respondent Board of Trustees’ determination, dated March 10,1999, denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Board of Trustees, as a consequence of a tie vote upon the issue of whether petitioner’s disability was caused by a service-related accident, denied petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits. Since there was some credible evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner’s disability was not caused by a service-related accident, the Board’s determination denying petitioner accident disability retirement benefits may not be disturbed (see, Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees, 90 NY2d 139, 147; Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 351). In voting on the causation issue, the Board of Trustees was entitled to rely upon the experts credited by the Medical Board and to reject the opinion of petitioner’s experts (see, Matter of Meyer, supra). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the very lengthy interval between the shooting and the onset of his disability was properly considered by the Medical Board in recommending that a causal connection between the two events had not been established (see, Matter of Schnyderite v Brown, 227 AD2d 286, lv denied 88 NY2d 812). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Kinsella v. Kelly
22 A.D.3d 225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Matter of Baird v. Kelly
2004 NY Slip Op 50394(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004)
Guzman v. Safir
293 A.D.2d 281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 220, 726 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.