Renna v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Renna v. Safir

282 A.D.2d 371, 723 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4111

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 371 (Renna v. Safir) 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

Renna v. Safir, 282 A.D.2d 371, 723 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered March 30, 2000, which denied and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Board of Trustees’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition for accident disability retirement benefits was properly denied. Respondent Board of Trustees’ determination that petitioner’s disability was not caused by the line-of-duty incident cited by him, but rather by a preexisting generalized depressive condition, was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 351). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered March 30, 2000, which denied and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Board of Trustees’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition for accident disability retirement benefits was properly denied. Respondent Board of Trustees’ determination that petitioner’s disability was not caused by the line-of-duty incident cited by him, but rather by a preexisting generalized depressive condition, was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 NY2d 347, 351). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 371, 723 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renna-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack