Sutton v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutton v. Frank

51 A.D.2d 729, 378 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 729 (Sutton v. Frank) 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

Sutton v. Frank, 51 A.D.2d 729, 378 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner to the status of being on sick leave due to a line-of-duty injury, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 17, 1975, which dismissed his petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On the record under review, we find adequate medical evidence that petitioner’s 1958 injury, sustained while he was on duty, was not the cause of his present condition; the medical review board and the police commissioner did not abuse their discretion in making their respective determinations. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Damiani and Rabin, 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 compel respondents to reinstate petitioner to the status of being on sick leave due to a line-of-duty injury, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 17, 1975, which dismissed his petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On the record under review, we find adequate medical evidence that petitioner’s 1958 injury, sustained while he was on duty, was not the cause of his present condition; the medical review board and the police commissioner did not abuse their discretion in making their respective determinations. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 729, 378 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-frank-nyappdiv-1976.