Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Jeffrey Hughes, Petitioner-Appellant v. Raymond Kelly

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


March 29, 2012

IN RE JEFFREY HUGHES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND KELLY, AS POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Hughes v Kelly

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 29, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered March 18, 2011, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondents, dated June 14, 2010, which denied petitioner accidental disability retirement benefits and ordinary disability retirement benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was a rational basis for respondents' determination (see generally Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760 [1996]). The record shows that after reviewing the medical evidence submitted by petitioner and the findings from its physical examinations of petitioner, the Medical Board concluded that there was no objective evidence of a disability. The Board found that the deficits in petitioner's range of motion were attributable to voluntary guarding and there were no objective radiographic studies presented showing abnormal findings. Moreover, contrary to petitioner's contention, the Medical Board did consider evidence from petitioner's doctors in 2009, and provided a rational explanation for its medical judgment. It is well established that the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Medical Board (see Matter of Appleby v Herkommer, 165 AD2d 727, 728 [1990]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 29, 2012

CLERK

20120329

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.