Singleton v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singleton v. Brown

181 A.D.2d 580

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 580 (Singleton v. Brown) 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

Singleton v. Brown, 181 A.D.2d 580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered December 14, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying him disability retirement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the determination of the Board of Trustees that the petitioner was not disabled. In such matters, the Board of Trustees is entitled to rely upon the medical conclusions of the Medical Board (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 60 NY2d 347, 351). Here, the Medical Board considered petitioner’s condition five times, over a five year period, and each time determined he was not disabled. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered December 14, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying him disability retirement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the determination of the Board of Trustees that the petitioner was not disabled. In such matters, the Board of Trustees is entitled to rely upon the medical conclusions of the Medical Board (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 60 NY2d 347, 351). Here, the Medical Board considered petitioner’s condition five times, over a five year period, and each time determined he was not disabled. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-brown-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack