Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cepeda v. New York State Comptrollergreen2 sentences2016During the course of the administrative hearing, the parties stipulated that the March 26, 2010 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; hence, the issue distilled to whether petitioner established that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties (see Matter of Anderson v DiNapoli, 126 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Cepeda v New York State Comptroller, 115 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Mullins v New York State Comptroller, 49 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2008]). 2016During the course of the administrative hearing, the parties stipulated that the March 26, 2010 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; hence, the issue distilled to whether petitioner established that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties (see Matter of Anderson v DiNapoli, 126 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Cepeda v New York State Comptroller, 115 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Mullins v New York State Comptroller, 49 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2008]). | 2 | 2 |
Mullins v. New York State Comptrollergreen2 sentences2016During the course of the administrative hearing, the parties stipulated that the March 26, 2010 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; hence, the issue distilled to whether petitioner established that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties (see Matter of Anderson v DiNapoli, 126 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Cepeda v New York State Comptroller, 115 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Mullins v New York State Comptroller, 49 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2008]). 2016During the course of the administrative hearing, the parties stipulated that the March 26, 2010 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; hence, the issue distilled to whether petitioner established that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties (see Matter of Anderson v DiNapoli, 126 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Cepeda v New York State Comptroller, 115 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Mullins v New York State Comptroller, 49 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2008]). | 2 | 2 |
Perez-Dunham v. McCallgreen2 sentences2016Where, as here, the applicant “has been assigned to light, limited or restricted duties for less than two years prior to the date [upon which the] application for disability retirement benefits was filed with [respondent,] . . . the issue of permanent incapacity [shall be determined] on the basis of the duties and job requirements of such previous full duty assignment” (2 NYCRR 364.3 [a]; see Matter of Perez-Dunham v McCall, 279 AD2d 884, 885 [2001]). 2016Where, as here, the applicant “has been assigned to light, limited or restricted duties for less than two years prior to the date [upon which the] application for disability retirement benefits was filed with [respondent,] . . . the issue of permanent incapacity [shall be determined] on the basis of the duties and job requirements of such previous full duty assignment” (2 NYCRR 364.3 [a]; see Matter of Perez-Dunham v McCall, 279 AD2d 884, 885 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Anderson v. DiNapoligreen2 sentences2016During the course of the administrative hearing, the parties stipulated that the March 26, 2010 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; hence, the issue distilled to whether petitioner established that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties (see Matter of Anderson v DiNapoli, 126 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Cepeda v New York State Comptroller, 115 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Mullins v New York State Comptroller, 49 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2008]). 2016During the course of the administrative hearing, the parties stipulated that the March 26, 2010 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; hence, the issue distilled to whether petitioner established that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties (see Matter of Anderson v DiNapoli, 126 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Cepeda v New York State Comptroller, 115 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Mullins v New York State Comptroller, 49 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2008]). | 2 | 2 |
Schroeter v. Yonkers City School Districtgreen1 sentence2016Control Bd., 136 AD3d 906, 907 [2016]; Matter of Schroeter v Yonkers City School Dist., 87 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2011]; Matter of Action Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estafanous v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd.green1 sentence2016Control Bd., 136 AD3d 906, 907 [2016]; Matter of Schroeter v Yonkers City School Dist., 87 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2011]; Matter of Action Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Stonewall Contracting Corp. v. New York City School Construction Authoritygreen1 sentence2016Auth., 120 AD3d 503, 504 [2014]). *1011 Moreover, contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, it was not deprived of procedural due process during the course of the administrative hearing by, among other things, certain evidentiary rulings made by the administrative hearing panel (see Matter of Estafanous v New York City Envtl. | 1 | 1 |
Heisler v. Scappaticcigreen1 sentence2011Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; see also Matter of Heisler v Scappaticci, 81 AD3d 954, 954-955 [2011]; Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Curto v. Cosgrovegreen1 sentence2011Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; see also Matter of Heisler v Scappaticci, 81 AD3d 954, 954-955 [2011]; Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
A.J. & Taylor Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
green
1 sentence2011Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; see also Matter of Heisler v Scappaticci, 81 AD3d 954, 954-955 [2011]; Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Reiss v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
green
1 sentence2000Cent. v Maul, 230 AD2d 278, 281 , lv dismissed and denied 90 NY2d 932 ; Matter of Estate of Smith v Atlas Assembly / Crawford Furniture Mfg. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center v. Maul
neutral
1 sentence2000Cent. v Maul, 230 AD2d 278, 281 , lv dismissed and denied 90 NY2d 932 ; Matter of Estate of Smith v Atlas Assembly / Crawford Furniture Mfg. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cole v. New York State Department of Education
green
1 sentence1995Moreover, the petitioner was not deprived of due process during the course of the administrative hearing (see generally, Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 73 NY2d 26 ; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 ; Matter of Cole v New York State Dept. of Educ., 94 AD2d 904, 905 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Gissendanner
green
1 sentence1995Moreover, the petitioner was not deprived of due process during the course of the administrative hearing (see generally, Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 73 NY2d 26 ; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 ; Matter of Cole v New York State Dept. of Educ., 94 AD2d 904, 905 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Prisoners' Legal Services v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
green
1 sentence1995Moreover, the petitioner was not deprived of due process during the course of the administrative hearing (see generally, Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 73 NY2d 26 ; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 ; Matter of Cole v New York State Dept. of Educ., 94 AD2d 904, 905 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.