Mulvaney v. DiNapoli — 92 A.D.3d 1021

Majority

p. 1021

In the Matter of Thomas J. Mulvaney, Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

[937 NYS2d 480]

Respondent is authorized to “resolve conflicts in the medical evidence and to credit one expert’s opinion over that of another, so long as the credited expert articulates a rational and fact-based opinion founded upon a physical examination and review of the pertinent medical records” (Matter of Freund v Hevesi, 34 AD3d 950 , 950 [2006]). Inasmuch as the opinion of the Retirement System’s expert meets this criteria, respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and, hence, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Ragno v DiNapoli, 68 AD3d 1342 , 1344 [2009]; Matter of Maori v DiNapoli, 56 AD3d 936 , 937 [2008]).

p. 1022

Rose, J.R, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cases cited

Freund v. Hevesi 34 AD3d 950 N.Y. App. Div. 2006-11-09 at 950 p. 1021
Ragno v. DiNapoli 68 AD3d 1342 N.Y. App. Div. 2009-12-10 at 1344 p. 1021