Kesick v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System

257 A.D.2d 831, 683 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 260
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 831 (Kesick v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System) 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
Kesick v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System, 257 A.D.2d 831, 683 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Comptroller which denied petitioner’s request for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the determination denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits on the ground that petitioner was not totally disabled from the performance of his duties as a police officer as a result of injuries sustained to his left knee. Based upon his physical examination of petitioner and review of his X rays, David Tucker, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that petitioner was permanently disabled from the performance of his duties and noted that petitioner’s discomfort could be controlled by over-the-counter medication. We reject petitioner’s contention that the countervailing medical evidence presented on his behalf was ignored. It is within the Comptroller’s authority to assess the conflicting medical evidence and to accept one medical opinion over that of another (see, Matter of Senecal v McCall, 252 AD2d 630; Matter of Hamlet v McCall, 222 AD2d 883). We accordingly find no reason to disturb the Comptroller’s determination, notwithstanding that there may be evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Spencer v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 220 AD2d 792, 793).

Yesawich Jr., J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Related

Sweeney v. Hevesi
50 A.D.3d 1366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Quigley v. Hevesi
48 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Trezza v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems
46 A.D.3d 1093 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Occhipinti v. McCall
305 A.D.2d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Maida v. McCall
305 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Liddle v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System
300 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Cruz v. New York State & Local Retirement System
299 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
DeRocker v. McCall
278 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Miata v. McCall
277 A.D.2d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 A.D.2d 831, 683 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kesick-v-new-york-state-local-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1999.