Shaw v. New York State Employees' Retirement System

78 A.D.2d 708, 432 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13242
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 9, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 708 (Shaw v. New York State Employees' 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
Shaw v. New York State Employees' Retirement System, 78 A.D.2d 708, 432 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Comptroller denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner based her application for accidental disability retirement [709]*709benefits on injuries she allegedly sustained on August 23, 1973 and September 24, 1975 while working as a nurse at the Brooklyn State Hospital. It was denied by the respondent Comptroller on findings that neither incident constituted an accident within the meaning of section 63 of the Retirement and Social Security Law and, in any event, that her present incapacity was not the result of these occurrences. While we might be inclined to agree with petitioner that the events of August 23, 1973 were truly accidental in nature (cf. Matter of Donahue v Levitt, 55 AD2d 240), it seems rational for the Comptroller to conclude that her struggle with a patient and consequent injury on September 24, 1975 arose from the performance of ordinary nursing responsibilities (cf. Matter of Chayut v Levitt, 53 AD2d 322; 70 AD2d 701). However, we need not resolve those issues since it further appears that respondent’s alternative finding is supported by substantial evidence. The medical proof was conflicting, but it was within the Comptroller’s province to accept the expert opinion that petitioner’s current disability is the result of a pre-existing osteoarthritic condition and not the foregoing work experiences. Determination confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alhmeyer v. New York State Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System
82 A.D.2d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Miller v. Regan
81 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A.D.2d 708, 432 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-new-york-state-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1980.