Lattanzi v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lattanzi v. McCall

210 A.D.2d 729, 621 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12728

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 729 (Lattanzi v. McCall) 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

Lattanzi v. McCall, 210 A.D.2d 729, 621 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Upon review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the determination denying petitioner’s applications for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits on the basis that petitioner, a parole officer, was not in service at the time of his injuries. The evidence indicates that petitioner was initially injured in an automobile accident en route to work and there is no indication he was performing any work function at that time. Under the circumstances, we agree that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that he was in service at the time of his injuries.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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

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

Upon review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the determination denying petitioner’s applications for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits on the basis that petitioner, a parole officer, was not in service at the time of his injuries. The evidence indicates that petitioner was initially injured in an automobile accident en route to work and there is no indication he was performing any work function at that time. Under the circumstances, we agree that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that he was in service at the time of his injuries.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 729, 621 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lattanzi-v-mccall-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack