Topkin v. Board of Education
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Servedio v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Bradley v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Schafer v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Carboni v. Teachers Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York, dated October 20, 1983, which found that the petitioner had sufficiently recovered from his previous disability to be restored to active service, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated November 13, 1984, which denied the application and dismissed the petition.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The report of the physician of the respondent Teachers’ Retirement System provides credible evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Manza v Malcolm, 44 AD2d 794). The opinion of the medical board of the Teachers’ Retirement System was conclusive (see, Matter of Mondello v Beekman, 78 AD2d 824, affd 56 NY2d 513). Furthermore, the resolution of a conflict in the medical evidence is solely within the province of the medical board (see, Matter ofManza v Malcolm, supra). The board is privileged to accept the medical reports of its own expert over those of a claimant (see, Carey v McGuire, 88 AD2d 532), and the Teachers’ Retirement System does not have to conduct an independent review of the findings of the medical board (see, Matter of Sherrid v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 112 Misc 2d 6, 7). A mere conflict in opinion among physicians is not a ground for disturbing a determination and the petition was properly dismissed (see, Roth v Board of Trustees, 66 AD2d 664). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.