Opinion
2014-06-20
In the Matter of Robert GUESNO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF EAST ROCHESTER, Respondent–Respondent.
Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina P.C., Rochester (Eric M. Dolan of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton (Paul J. Sweeney of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina P.C., Rochester (Eric M. Dolan of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton (Paul J. Sweeney of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the determination terminating his General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits on the ground that his current disability is not related to an on-the-job injury. Contrary to petitioner's contention, Supreme Court properly refused to transfer the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) inasmuch as the petition does not raise an issue of substantial evidence ( see Matter of Guillory v. Fischer, 110 A.D.3d 1426, 1427, 973 N.Y.S.2d 894,appeal dismissed22 N.Y.3d 1111, 982 N.Y.S.2d 440, 5 N.E.3d 587;Matter of Burns v. Carballada, 101 A.D.3d 1610, 1611, 956 N.Y.S.2d 357,appeal dismissed and lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 926, 976 N.Y.S.2d 441, 998 N.E.2d 1065). “Where, as here, a petition does not raise a substantial evidence issue, a court's inquiry is ‘limited to whether [the determination] was arbitrary, capricious or affected by error of law’ ” (Matter of Koch v. Sheehan, 95 A.D.3d 82, 89, 940 N.Y.S.2d 734,affd.21 N.Y.3d 697, 976 N.Y.S.2d 4, 998 N.E.2d 804). The record supports the court's conclusion that the determination was neither arbitrary and capricious, i.e., “without sound basis in reason and ... without regard to the facts” (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321), nor affected by an error of law ( cf. Matter of White v. County of Cortland, 97 N.Y.2d 336, 339, 740 N.Y.S.2d 288, 766 N.E.2d 950).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.