Ruocco v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruocco v. Safir

289 A.D.2d 9, 733 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11612

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 9 (Ruocco 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

Ruocco v. Safir, 289 A.D.2d 9, 733 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 25, 2000, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ denial of petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application was properly denied in view of the credible evidence, including petitioner’s medical records and the results of respondents’ examinations of petitioner, supporting respondent Medical Board’s determination that petitioner’s disability did not stem from the orthopedic condition upon which his application for accident disability retirement benefits was premised (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 25, 2000, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ denial of petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application was properly denied in view of the credible evidence, including petitioner’s medical records and the results of respondents’ examinations of petitioner, supporting respondent Medical Board’s determination that petitioner’s disability did not stem from the orthopedic condition upon which his application for accident disability retirement benefits was premised (see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 9, 733 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruocco-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack