Maida v. New York City Teachers' Retirement Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maida v. New York City Teachers' Retirement Board

62 A.D.2d 942, 403 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10951

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

DecidedApril 13, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.2d 942 (Maida v. New York City Teachers' Retirement Board) 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

Maida v. New York City Teachers' Retirement Board, 62 A.D.2d 942, 403 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 20, 1977, granting application of petitioner-respondent to annul appellants’ determination that respondent’s disability was not job related and directing appellants to retire respondent on accident disability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and vacated, and determination of appellants reinstated. The X rays, medical reports and certificates submitted to appellants’ medical board provided the medical board with a rational basis to conclude that the physical condition of which respondent complained was not job related. The [943]*943determination therefore was neither arbitrary nor capricious. In the circumstances, we cannot say that the medical examination of respondent by physicians of the medical board was inadequate so as to require a remand for that purpose. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 20, 1977, granting application of petitioner-respondent to annul appellants’ determination that respondent’s disability was not job related and directing appellants to retire respondent on accident disability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and vacated, and determination of appellants reinstated. The X rays, medical reports and certificates submitted to appellants’ medical board provided the medical board with a rational basis to conclude that the physical condition of which respondent complained was not job related. The [943]*943determination therefore was neither arbitrary nor capricious. In the circumstances, we cannot say that the medical examination of respondent by physicians of the medical board was inadequate so as to require a remand for that purpose. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 942, 403 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maida-v-new-york-city-teachers-retirement-board-nyappdiv-1978.