Opinion
10-05-2017
In the Matter of Kevin M. O'CONNOR, Petitioner, v. Thomas P. DiNAPOLI, as State Comptroller, Respondent.
Law Offices of Wayne J. Schaefer, LLC, Smiththown (Wayne J. Schaefer of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Wayne J. Schaefer, LLC, Smiththown (Wayne J. Schaefer of counsel), for petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, DEVINE and PRITZKER, JJ.
DEVINE, J. 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 respondent denying petitioner's application for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
In January 2013, petitioner, a Suffolk County park police officer, applied for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits with the New York State and Local Police & Fire Retirement System (hereinafter PFRS), alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties as the result of a work-related injury. The application was initially denied on the ground that petitioner was not a member of PFRS. Petitioner requested a redetermination and, following a hearing, the Hearing Officer upheld the denials for the same reason. Respondent adopted the Hearing Officer's decision, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. "[Respondent] has exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of O'Brien v. DiNapoli, 116 A.D.3d 1124, 1125, 983 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv. granted 23 N.Y.3d 908, 2014 WL 2936783 [2014] ; accord Matter of Brandt v. DiNapoli, 126 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 5 N.Y.S.3d 587 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 904, 2015 WL 5254752 [2015] ). Here, respondent determined that petitioner was a member of the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter ERS), pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 89–r, and was therefore ineligible to receive retirement benefits under PFRS. In 1996, the Legislature enacted Retirement and Social Security Law § 89–r under article 2 of the Retirement and Social Security Law, which governs ERS (see Retirement and Social Security Law §§ 10, 89–r ). The statute was enacted for the purpose of establishing a 25–year retirement plan for individuals employed as Suffolk County park police officers (see Senate Introducer Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L. 1996, ch. 605, at 8). Notably, petitioner registered as a member of ERS when he began his employment as a Suffolk County park police officer in 2003, and he believed that he contributed a certain percentage of his paychecks to ERS during his employment.
The statute initially referenced Suffolk County park rangers, but that reference was changed to Suffolk County park police officers in 2001 (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 89–r, as amended by L. 2001, ch. 504, § 1).
In contrast, PFRS is "a separate retirement system for police[ ] and fire [fighters]" governed by article 8 of the Retirement and Social Security Law (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 292 ) that includes a 20–year retirement plan for members of the Suffolk County police department (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 387–a ). Although eligibility in this plan also included other law enforcement officers in Suffolk County (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 387–a [a][2], [3] ), Suffolk County park police officers are not listed and are instead covered by Retirement and Social Security Law § 89–r. In light of the foregoing, respondent's determination that petitioner was a member of ERS rather than PFRS was not "irrational, unreasonable or contrary to the statutory language" ( Matter of Sush v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 2 A.D.3d 1127, 1129, 768 N.Y.S.2d 697 [2003] ; see Retirement and Social Security Law §§ 89–r, 387–a ).
Petitioner argues that respondent should have found that he was a member of PFRS because his job duties satisfied the definition of a police officer under Civil Service Law § 58 and he was a member of an organized police force (see Matter of LaMore v. Regan, 205 A.D.2d 1023, 1023, 613 N.Y.S.2d 992 [1994] ). However, inasmuch as the Legislature specifically categorized Suffolk County park police officers as members of ERS, respondent lacked authority to do otherwise (see Matter of Morrissey v. New York State Employees' Retirement Sys., 298 N.Y. 442, 449–450, 84 N.E.2d 627 [1949] ; Matter of O'Brien v. DiNapoli, 116 A.D.3d at 1126, 983 N.Y.S.2d 333 ; Matter of Brei v. Regan, 89 A.D.2d 1060, 1061, 454 N.Y.S.2d 766 [1982] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH and PRITZKER, JJ., concur.