Summary
In Matter of Maso v Regan (81 A.D.2d 734), this court confirmed a determination by respondent denying an application for accidental disability retirement benefits in an instance where the applicant was injured in a parking lot provided by the employer on the way to her car immediately after work.
Summary of this case from Matter of Smith v. ReganOpinion
April 30, 1981
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller, which denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement. Petitioner, an employee of the Town of Brookhaven Highway Department, was injured on the way to her car following the termination of her work on July 28, 1978. The accident occurred in a parking lot owned by the Town of Brookhaven and in which petitioner had parked her car. Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement pursuant to section 63 Retire. Soc. Sec. of the Retirement and Social Security Law was denied on the ground that she was not in service at the time of the incident having already concluded her work for the day. This proceeding was then commenced to review the Comptroller's determination. Entitlement to accidental disability retirement requires, inter alia, physical or mental incapacitation for performance of duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident sustained in service (Retirement and Social Security Law, § 63, subd a, par 2). The Comptroller determined that since petitioner fell in the parking lot after concluding her work for the day, she was not in service at the time of the incident and, therefore, ineligible for accidental disability retirement. It is urged by petitioner that the Comptroller's interpretation of the statute in question is too narrow and that she should have been considered in service at the time of her accident. Petitioner relies on cases involving the Workers' Compensation Law wherein interpretations of the phrase "injuries arising out of and in the course of employment" have included injuries to employees under circumstances similar to those in the present case (see Matter of Lynch v City of New York, 242 N.Y. 115; Matter of Donehue v Hebbard, 246 App. Div. 662). Petitioner is in fact receiving benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law as a result of the accident in question. By statute, however, a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board awarding benefits shall not constitute a determination that an accidental disability retirement allowance is payable (Retirement and Social Security Law, § 64, subd b) and it is well established that the Comptroller is vested with "exclusive authority" to determine applications for any form of retirement (Retirement and Social Security Law, § 74, subd b; Matter of Moore v Levitt, 74 A.D.2d 971). The Comptroller's independent judgment, when supported by substantial evidence, must be accepted (Matter of Sica v New York State Employees' Retirement System, 75 A.D.2d 927; Matter of Mathews v Regan, 69 A.D.2d 970, mot for lv to app den 48 N.Y.2d 610). In our view, interpretation of the statute in question involves an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom and the issue is not one of pure statutory reading and analysis. Consequently, the Comptroller's interpretation, if not irrational nor unreasonable, should be upheld (Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 451, 459). Upon consideration of the record in its entirety, we are of the opinion that the Comptroller's determination is neither irrational nor unreasonable and it is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, it must be confirmed (cf. Matter of Sorli v Levitt, 77 A.D.2d 773). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J.P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.