Nugent v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System

255 A.D.2d 682, 679 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11669
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 682 (Nugent v. New York State & Local 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
Nugent v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System, 255 A.D.2d 682, 679 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a highway general foreman, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits because of injuries he allegedly sustained to his neck, back and arms after being attacked by a co-worker. Petitioner’s application was denied on the ground [683]*683that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his employment duties. Substantial evidence supports the determination. Sherwood Greiner, an orthopedic surgeon who examined petitioner and testified as an expert on behalf of respondent State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, opined that petitioner’s subjective complaints of pain were inconsistent with the medical findings. It was Greiner’s opinion that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from the performance of his employment duties. While petitioner presented medical testimony to the contrary, it is within respondent Comptroller’s authority to evaluate conflicting medical evidence and to accept one medical expert’s opinion over that of another (see, Matter of Senecal v McCall, 252 AD2d 630). Furthermore, the record fails to support petitioner’s contention that he was denied a fair hearing, notwithstanding the fact that the Hearing Officer accepted the proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law of respondents’ counsel.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

Related

Pellino v. McCall
275 A.D.2d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Moore v. McCall
261 A.D.2d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Mallory v. New York State & Local Employees Retirement System
261 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Kelly v. McCall
260 A.D.2d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 682, 679 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nugent-v-new-york-state-local-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1998.