McNamara v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNamara v. City of Syracuse

60 A.D.2d 753, 400 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14799

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 753 (McNamara v. City of Syracuse) 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

McNamara v. City of Syracuse, 60 A.D.2d 753, 400 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated at Special Term, McLaughlin, J., and the following memorandum: We merely add that since petitioner’s proceeding was one in the nature of mandamus, the period of limitations commences to run after the respondent’s refusal, upon the demand of petitioner, to perform its duty and not when the determination to be reviewed becomes "final and binding” (CPLR 217). We agree with Special Term that the record as a whole supports the conclusion that petitioner’s job-related accident caused or contributed to his disability in a substantial degree (see Matter of Ernest v Boggs Lake Estates, 12 NY2d 414; Matter of Geremski v Department of Fire of City of Syracuse, 72 Misc 2d 166, affd 42 AD2d 1050, mot for lv to app den 33 NY2d 521). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated at Special Term, McLaughlin, J., and the following memorandum: We merely add that since petitioner’s proceeding was one in the nature of mandamus, the period of limitations commences to run after the respondent’s refusal, upon the demand of petitioner, to perform its duty and not when the determination to be reviewed becomes "final and binding” (CPLR 217). We agree with Special Term that the record as a whole supports the conclusion that petitioner’s job-related accident caused or contributed to his disability in a substantial degree (see Matter of Ernest v Boggs Lake Estates, 12 NY2d 414; Matter of Geremski v Department of Fire of City of Syracuse, 72 Misc 2d 166, affd 42 AD2d 1050, mot for lv to app den 33 NY2d 521). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 753, 400 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack