Opinion
No. 05 Civ. 04958 (GEL).
November 9, 2005
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Oscar Pennyfeather, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority ("TA"), brought this action against the New York City Employees' Retirement System ("NYCERS"), claiming that he was wrongfully denied disability retirement benefits for which he had applied. Defendant moves to dismiss on a variety of grounds. The motion will be granted.
In opposition, plaintiff submitted a one-page fax to the Court, solely stating that he opposed the motion, that all "evidence [was] originally submitted in the complaint," and reiterating his allegation that his employer had provided false information. (P. Mem. 1.)
Plaintiff complains that NYCERS incorrectly denied his claim for benefits based on false information provided by the Transit Authority. Pennyfeather first filed his application for disability benefits on December 7, 2001. (Compl. ¶ 7). On June 24, 2003, the NYCERS Medical Board recommended to its Board of Trustees that plaintiff's application be denied, a decision that plaintiff alleges was based on false information provided by the TA. ( Id. ¶ 9.) Specifically, Pennyfeather alleges that the TA forced him to sign an allegedly inaccurate injury report ( id. ¶ 22), and that his employer lied about his late reporting of an accident. (P. Mem. 1.) His application for benefits was denied on April 15, 2005. (Compl. ¶ 1, 7.)
The legal basis for any federal cause of action is not clearly stated in the complaint, but construing the pro se complaint liberally, it appears that plaintiff intends to assert that he was denied a property interest without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Assuming arguendo that Pennyfeather's pension benefits constitute a property interest, and considering solely on the facts alleged in the complaint (which are taken as true) and the attached documents, no constitutional deprivation has been pled. Pennyfeather does not appear to argue that any deprivation he suffered resulted from a systemic inadequacy of New York's procedures for deciding questions of this sort. In any event, such a claim would fail, for essentially those procedures have been found constitutionally adequate in prior case law. See McDarby v. Dinkins, 907 F.2d 1334, 1337 (2d Cir. 1990) (finding that procedures utilized in determining whether party was entitled to disability pension met due process requirements); Basciano v. Herkimer, 605 F.2d 605, 610-11 (2d Cir. 1978) (same).
Rather, plaintiff appears to argue simply that the particular decision made in his case was arbitrary and capricious, or at least erroneous. Such a claim, however, does not state a due process violation where a state provides adequate post-deprivation procedures to address such errors. As the Second Circuit has held, New York does provide adequate process for addressing such claims, via review of the final decision of NYCERS in an Article 78 proceeding in the New York state courts. Campo v. N.Y. City Employees' Ret. Sys., 843 F.2d 96, 100-02 (2d Cir 1988). Plaintiff could have brought such a proceeding for review. N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 7801- 7806; McDarby, 907 F.2d at 1338. In this case, Pennyfeather was informed that the law provided him an opportunity to contest the denial of benefits through an Article 78 proceeding. ( See Compl. Ex., Letter from Milton Aron, Acting Executive Director of NYCERS, to Pennyfeather, April 15, 2005.) His failure to do so precludes his claim here. See Giglio v. Dunn, 732 F.2d 1133, 1134-35 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that failure of plaintiff to avail himself of Article 78 proceeding did not constitute due process violation).
In the absence of a viable federal claim, plaintiff's pendent state law claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
SO ORDERED.