Rochford v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rochford v. Safir

277 A.D.2d 65, 715 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11957

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 65 (Rochford 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

Rochford v. Safir, 277 A.D.2d 65, 715 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), entered February 18, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accident disability retirement pension, or, in the alternative, to compel respondents to return her to full duty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner suffers from a disabling seizure disorder is supported by some credible evidence (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 761), namely, the report of the Medical Board’s neurologist that petitioner continues to be susceptible to a significant risk of seizures (see, id., at 761, citing Matter of Tobin v Steisel, 64 NY2d 254, 258-259). With respect to petitioner’s claim for an accident disability pension, the IAS Court correctly held that respondents could rationally reject petitioner’s claim that she sustained a head injury in the line of duty, or, assuming she did, could rationally conclude that she failed to sustain her burden of establishing a causal relationship between such injury and her seizure disorder (see, Matter of Duggan v Ward, 160 AD2d 532; Matter of Bevers v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 179 AD2d 489, lv denied 79 NY2d 758). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), entered February 18, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accident disability retirement pension, or, in the alternative, to compel respondents to return her to full duty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner suffers from a disabling seizure disorder is supported by some credible evidence (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 761), namely, the report of the Medical Board’s neurologist that petitioner continues to be susceptible to a significant risk of seizures (see, id., at 761, citing Matter of Tobin v Steisel, 64 NY2d 254, 258-259). With respect to petitioner’s claim for an accident disability pension, the IAS Court correctly held that respondents could rationally reject petitioner’s claim that she sustained a head injury in the line of duty, or, assuming she did, could rationally conclude that she failed to sustain her burden of establishing a causal relationship between such injury and her seizure disorder (see, Matter of Duggan v Ward, 160 AD2d 532; Matter of Bevers v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 179 AD2d 489, lv denied 79 NY2d 758). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 65, 715 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochford-v-safir-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack