Monk v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF JACQUELINE E. MONK, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE AND…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 11, 2003

308 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

764 N.Y.S.2d 227

Opinion

93530

September 11, 2003.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller which denied petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits.

Barry D. Haberman, New York City, for petitioner.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Carpinello, J.

Petitioner, a mental hygiene therapy aide, applied for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law article 15, claiming that she was permanently disabled due to back and knee injuries suffered in a non-work-related fall. Petitioner's application was initially denied and, following a hearing and redetermination, a Hearing Officer determined that petitioner was not disabled from her regular duties and denied her application. The Comptroller upheld the Hearing Officer's determination, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner was examined by two physicians on behalf of respondent. Both of these medical experts found that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing her duties as a mental hygiene therapy aide. While petitioner's treating physician opined otherwise, the Comptroller is empowered to resolve such conflicts in the medical evidence (see Matter of Brown v. McCall, 294 A.D.2d 703, 705;Matter of Chrysler v. McCall, 292 A.D.2d 700, 701, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 611). It is well settled that the Comptroller is vested with the sole authority to determine applications for disability retirement benefits and such determinations will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Brown v. McCall, supra; Matter of Keller v. Regan, 212 A.D.2d 856, 858). Here, we find that substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination to deny petitioner's application.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.