Rappoport v. Teachers' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rappoport v. Teachers' Retirement System

88 A.D.2d 559, 450 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16714

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

DecidedMay 25, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 559 (Rappoport v. Teachers' 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

Rappoport v. Teachers' Retirement System, 88 A.D.2d 559, 450 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dontzin, J.), entered February 3, 1981 dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The medical board’s determination that there was insufficient evidence of accident disability was not arbitrary, capricious or without rational basis. It is therefore unnecessary for us to consider whether the board of trustees of the Teachers’ Retirement System was acting within its authority in granting petitioner’s request for an exception to the two-year limitation for the making of such application prescribed by subdivision c of section B20-42.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Asch, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dontzin, J.), entered February 3, 1981 dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The medical board’s determination that there was insufficient evidence of accident disability was not arbitrary, capricious or without rational basis. It is therefore unnecessary for us to consider whether the board of trustees of the Teachers’ Retirement System was acting within its authority in granting petitioner’s request for an exception to the two-year limitation for the making of such application prescribed by subdivision c of section B20-42.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 559, 450 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rappoport-v-teachers-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1982.