Mulvaney v. DiNapoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mulvaney v. DiNapoli

92 A.D.3d 1021, 937 N.Y.2d 480

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 1021 (Mulvaney v. DiNapoli) 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

Mulvaney v. DiNapoli, 92 A.D.3d 1021, 937 N.Y.2d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Egan Jr., J.

Respondent is authorized to “resolve conflicts in the medical evidence and to credit one expert’s opinion over that of another, so long as the credited expert articulates a rational and fact-based opinion founded upon a physical examination and review of the pertinent medical records” (Matter of Freund v Hevesi, 34 AD3d 950, 950 [2006]). Inasmuch as the opinion of the Retirement System’s expert meets this criteria, respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and, hence, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Ragno v DiNapoli, 68 AD3d 1342, 1344 [2009]; Matter of Maori v DiNapoli, 56 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]).

[1022]*1022Rose, J.R, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, 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

Egan Jr., J.

Respondent is authorized to “resolve conflicts in the medical evidence and to credit one expert’s opinion over that of another, so long as the credited expert articulates a rational and fact-based opinion founded upon a physical examination and review of the pertinent medical records” (Matter of Freund v Hevesi, 34 AD3d 950, 950 [2006]). Inasmuch as the opinion of the Retirement System’s expert meets this criteria, respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and, hence, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Ragno v DiNapoli, 68 AD3d 1342, 1344 [2009]; Matter of Maori v DiNapoli, 56 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]).

[1022]*1022Rose, J.R, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 1021, 937 N.Y.2d 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulvaney-v-dinapoli-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack