Layne v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Layne v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

273 A.D.2d 52, 708 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6384

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

DecidedJune 8, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 52 (Layne v. New York City 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

Layne v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 273 A.D.2d 52, 708 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 19, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner a disability pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Medical Board’s finding that petitioner is not disabled is supported by credible evidence, including its own examination of petitioner as well as an examination performed by an outside physician (see, Matter of DeNaro v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 265 AD2d 215, citing, inter alia, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 19, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner a disability pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Medical Board’s finding that petitioner is not disabled is supported by credible evidence, including its own examination of petitioner as well as an examination performed by an outside physician (see, Matter of DeNaro v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 265 AD2d 215, citing, inter alia, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 52, 708 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layne-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack