Muffoletto v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muffoletto v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

198 A.D.2d 7, 603 N.Y.S.2d 144

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 7 (Muffoletto 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

Muffoletto v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 198 A.D.2d 7, 603 N.Y.S.2d 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about July 16, 1992, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accident disability retirement pension, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the record contains ample credible evidence supporting the Medical Board’s finding that the injury petitioner sustained in March 1989 has not disabled him from performing his duties as a sanitation worker. That petitioner has adduced conflicting medical opinion provides no occasion for judicial interference (Matter of Campazzi v Ward, 181 AD2d 431; Matter of Cassidy v Ward, 169 AD2d 482; Matter of Spiro v Ward, 159 AD2d 225). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about July 16, 1992, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accident disability retirement pension, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the record contains ample credible evidence supporting the Medical Board’s finding that the injury petitioner sustained in March 1989 has not disabled him from performing his duties as a sanitation worker. That petitioner has adduced conflicting medical opinion provides no occasion for judicial interference (Matter of Campazzi v Ward, 181 AD2d 431; Matter of Cassidy v Ward, 169 AD2d 482; Matter of Spiro v Ward, 159 AD2d 225). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 7, 603 N.Y.S.2d 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muffoletto-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack