Rudnitsky v. Anker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudnitsky v. Anker

58 A.D.2d 653, 396 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737

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

DecidedJune 27, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 653 (Rudnitsky v. Anker) 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

Rudnitsky v. Anker, 58 A.D.2d 653, 396 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent chancellor’s determination that petitioner’s physical disability did not result from a school accident, but from a prior accident, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 16, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and" disbursements. Where there exists "a difference of opinion between doctors as to the cause of petitioner’s disability, respondents’ determination, based upon the advice and recommendation of its Medical Board, cannot be said to be arbitrary and capricious” (see Matter of McGovern v Lowery, 39 AD2d 518, affd 32 NY2d 954). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent chancellor’s determination that petitioner’s physical disability did not result from a school accident, but from a prior accident, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 16, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and" disbursements. Where there exists "a difference of opinion between doctors as to the cause of petitioner’s disability, respondents’ determination, based upon the advice and recommendation of its Medical Board, cannot be said to be arbitrary and capricious” (see Matter of McGovern v Lowery, 39 AD2d 518, affd 32 NY2d 954). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 653, 396 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudnitsky-v-anker-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack