Tanner v. City of New York Teachers' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tanner v. City of New York Teachers' Retirement System

77 A.D.2d 883, 431 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12673

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 883 (Tanner v. City of New York Teachers' 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

Tanner v. City of New York Teachers' Retirement System, 77 A.D.2d 883, 431 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review determinations of the respondent retirement system denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 22, 1979, which denied and dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The determinations under review were not arbitrary or capricious and were supported by substantial evidence. We find no competent evidence in this record that petitioner was refused employment at any particular school as a result of [884]*884her subject disability. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Weinstein, 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, inter alia, to review determinations of the respondent retirement system denying petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 22, 1979, which denied and dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The determinations under review were not arbitrary or capricious and were supported by substantial evidence. We find no competent evidence in this record that petitioner was refused employment at any particular school as a result of [884]*884her subject disability. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 883, 431 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-city-of-new-york-teachers-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1980.