Volpicelli v. New York City Police Pension Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Volpicelli v. New York City Police Pension Fund

258 A.D.2d 449, 682 N.Y.S.2d 587

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 449 (Volpicelli v. 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

Volpicelli v. New York City Police Pension Fund, 258 A.D.2d 449, 682 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 5, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination that her husband’s election of the maximum retirement allowance, which did not provide her with any death benefits, was irrevocable, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application was properly denied for failure to adduce proof sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether petitioner’s husband was suffering from a medically classified psychosis at the time he selected his pension options (see, Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 25 NY2d 196, 204-206; Sigman v Human Resources Admin., 227 AD2d 218). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 5, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination that her husband’s election of the maximum retirement allowance, which did not provide her with any death benefits, was irrevocable, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application was properly denied for failure to adduce proof sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether petitioner’s husband was suffering from a medically classified psychosis at the time he selected his pension options (see, Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 25 NY2d 196, 204-206; Sigman v Human Resources Admin., 227 AD2d 218). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 449, 682 N.Y.S.2d 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volpicelli-v-new-york-city-police-pension-fund-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack