Sheehan v. Board of Trustees of New York City Police Pension Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Board of Trustees of New York City Police Pension Fund

300 A.D.2d 193, 750 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12835

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 193 (Sheehan v. Board of Trustees of New York City Police Pension Fund) 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

Sheehan v. Board of Trustees of New York City Police Pension Fund, 300 A.D.2d 193, 750 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), entered May 13, 2002, which, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondents’ denial of accident disability retirement benefits to petitioner, denied petitioner’s husband’s motion to restore the proceeding to the calendar and dismissed the petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

There has been no substitution of the deceased petitioner’s personal representative even though respondents’ brief clearly [194]*194articulated the necessity of such step, and, accordingly, under the circumstances presented herein, we dismiss the appeal (CPLR 1021). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), entered May 13, 2002, which, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondents’ denial of accident disability retirement benefits to petitioner, denied petitioner’s husband’s motion to restore the proceeding to the calendar and dismissed the petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

There has been no substitution of the deceased petitioner’s personal representative even though respondents’ brief clearly [194]*194articulated the necessity of such step, and, accordingly, under the circumstances presented herein, we dismiss the appeal (CPLR 1021). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 193, 750 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-board-of-trustees-of-new-york-city-police-pension-fund-nyappdiv-2002.