Roach v. McCall, 284 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Roach v. McCall, 284 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: NBT Bank NA v. Scotty's Auto Sales, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2020-04-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) NBT Bank NA v. Scotty's Auto Sales, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Auth. , 259 AD2d 819, 823 [1999]; see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl. , 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger , 284 AD2d 746, 747 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shlang v. Inbar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In view of the foregoing and according deference to Supreme Court’s findings, the court’s determination that defendant was not entitled to brokerage fees as alleged in the first counterclaim was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 747 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shlang v. Inbar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In view of the foregoing and according deference to Supreme Court’s findings, the court’s determination that defendant was not entitled to brokerage fees as alleged in the first counterclaim was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 747 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shlang v. Inbar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In view of the foregoing and according deference to Supreme Court’s findings, the court’s determination that defendant was not entitled to brokerage fees as alleged in the first counterclaim was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 747 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hall
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We reject respondent’s contention that the court abused its discretion in permitting petitioner to call respondent’s expert as a rebuttal witness (see generally Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 748-749 [2001]), and the record belies the further contention of respondent that the court limited his cross-examination of petitioner’s expert concerning recidivism statistics related to the Static 99 assessment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hall
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We reject respondent’s contention that the court abused its discretion in permitting petitioner to call respondent’s expert as a rebuttal witness (see generally Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 748-749 [2001]), and the record belies the further contention of respondent that the court limited his cross-examination of petitioner’s expert concerning recidivism statistics related to the Static 99 assessment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green Harbour Homeowners' Ass'n v. G.H. Development & Construction, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
We decline to disturb, and give great deference to, Supreme Court’s credibility determinations and related factual findings that plaintiff failed to prove that any defendant fraudulently altered the map filed with the County Clerk (see Riggs v Benning, 290 AD2d 716, 717 [2002]; Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 747 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amodeo v. Town of Marlborough
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
In our review of this nonjury trial, we assess “the weight of the evidence presented and grant judgment warranted by the record, giving due deference to the trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility” (Riggs v Benning, 290 AD2d 716, 717 [2002] [citation omitted]; see Glencoe Leather Corp. v Parillo, 285 AD2d 891, 892 [2001]; Burton v State of New York 283 AD2d 875, 877 [2001]), “unless it is manifest that [the court’s findings] are contrary to any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 747 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bauer v. Goodrich & Sherwood Associates, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
While we afford deference to credibility determinations of the trial court when it has observed the witnesses testify (see Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 748-749 [2001]; Gold v New York State Bus.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flynn v. Rockwell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · confidence medium
First, “[d]elay alone does not establish laches * * *; rather, the delay must result in prejudice to the party now seeking to invoke the doctrine” (Matter of Roth v S & H Grossinger, 284 AD2d 746, 748 [citation omitted]; see, Meyer v Meyer, 74 AD2d 945, 946 , appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 1056 ).
discussed Cited "see" Occhipinti v. McCall
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Respondent is vested with “exclusive authority” to determine applications for accidental disability retirement benefits (Retirement and Social Security Law § 374 [b]; see Matter of Roach v McCall, 284 AD2d 746 [2001]), and such determinations will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if there is evidence in the record to support a contrary result (see Matter of Russo v McCall, 293 AD2d 912 [2002]; Matter of Harper v McCall, 277 AD2d 589, 590 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of
v.
Robert Roach v. H. Carl McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 21, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 746
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6637
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner was employed as the head bus driver by the Town of Webb Union Free School District from 1969 until his retirement in August 1996 at the age of 62. At that time, petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, claiming that his right shoulder had been injured as the result of employment-related accidents in 1985, 1995 and 1996, which had incapacitated him from performing the duties performed by a head bus driver. Respondent Comptroller denied petitioner’s application on the ground that, inter alia, petitioner’s condition did not result from employment-related accidents.

At the hearing that ensued, John Cambareri, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon testifying on behalf of respondent State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, opined that petitioner’s disability was the result of traumatic arthritis in his right shoulder stemming from a shoulder dislocation suffered by petitioner as a teenager. Although petitioner’s expert medical witnesses testified to the contrary, it lies within the exclusive authority of the Comptroller to evaluate divergent medical opinions in the process of determining whether a claimant is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits (see, Matter of DeCarolis v McCall, 272 AD2d 824, 825; Matter of Giebner v McCall, 270 AD2d 705, 706). We conclude that the determination under review is supported by the requisite substantial evidence; hence, it will not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.