Opinion
2014-11-19
In the Matter of Deputy Sheriff Charles LOWTHER, appellant, v. COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, et al., respondents.
Bunyan & Baumgartner, LLP, Blauvelt, N.Y. (Joseph P. Baumgartner of counsel), for appellant. Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, N.Y. (Paul J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondents.
Bunyan & Baumgartner, LLP, Blauvelt, N.Y. (Joseph P. Baumgartner of counsel), for appellant. Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, N.Y. (Paul J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondents.
, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a hearing officer dated November 24, 2012, made after a hearing, which confirmed a determination of the Rockland County Sheriff dated May 12, 2011, denying the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated February 25, 2013, which sustained the determination and denied the petition.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,
ADJUDGED that the determination dated November 24, 2012, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
When a petition raises a question of whether an administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence, the proceeding should be transferred from the Supreme Court to this Court to address that issue ( seeCPLR 7804[g] ). As a result, we will treat this matter as one which had been transferred here by the Supreme Court and review the administrative determination de novo ( see Matter of Sullivan v. County of Rockland, 121 A.D.3d 700, 993 N.Y.S.2d 355; Matter of Konstas v. Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 104 A.D.3d 689, 960 N.Y.S.2d 458; Matter of Wynne v. Town of Ramapo, 286 A.D.2d 338, 339, 728 N.Y.S.2d 785).
The standard of review in an administrative determination made after a hearing is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( seeCPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181–82, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). The test of whether the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence is whether, on the record, a reasonable person might have made the findings and conclusions made by the administrative agency ( see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d at 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–81, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183).
In order to be eligible for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c, a covered municipal employee must prove a direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury ( see Matter of Theroux v. Reilly, 1 N.Y.3d 232, 771 N.Y.S.2d 43, 803 N.E.2d 364; Matter of White v. County of Cortland, 97 N.Y.2d 336, 340, 740 N.Y.S.2d 288, 766 N.E.2d 950; Matter of Tancredi v. Town of Harrison/Vil. of Harrison Police Dept., 72 A.D.3d 832, 898 N.Y.S.2d 631; Matter of Schmidt v. Putnam County Off. of the Sheriff, 49 A.D.3d 761, 854 N.Y.S.2d 178). Here, the determination that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c is supported by substantial evidence in the record ( see Matter of DiMeglio v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., 67 A.D.3d 908, 888 N.Y.S.2d 436; Matter of Wynne v. Town of Ramapo, 286 A.D.2d 338, 728 N.Y.S.2d 785).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.