Opinion
39 CA 18–01482
06-07-2019
In the Matter of Gerald TOMASSI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Respondent–Respondent.
FLAHERTY & SHEA, BUFFALO (KATHLEEN E. HOROHOE, DERBY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (J. CHRISTINE CHIRIBOGA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
FLAHERTY & SHEA, BUFFALO (KATHLEEN E. HOROHOE, DERBY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT.
TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (J. CHRISTINE CHIRIBOGA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner is a former firefighter for respondent who was granted performance of duty disability retirement benefits (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 363–c ). Thereafter, petitioner received a supplemental benefit until respondent discontinued payment thereof when petitioner attained the mandatory service retirement age of 62 (see General Municipal Law § 207–a [2 ]; Retirement and Social Security Law § 384–d[i] ). Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, reimbursement and reinstatement of the supplemental benefit on the grounds that an amendment to Retirement and Social Security Law § 384–d(i) increased the mandatory service retirement age applicable to him to 65 and that he was being denied equal protection of the law inasmuch as other similarly situated firefighters continued to receive the supplemental benefit from respondent. Supreme Court denied the petition, and we affirm.
"It is fundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature" ( Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v. City of New York , 41 N.Y.2d 205, 208, 391 N.Y.S.2d 544, 359 N.E.2d 1338 [1976] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the plain language of the amendment and the legislative history thereof establish that the amendment was intended, as relevant here, to permit certain firefighter members of the retirement system who are "capable of performing the duties of their position" to continue working until the age of 65 while retaining the mandatory service retirement age of 62 for other firefighters enrolled in the subject retirement plan ( Retirement and Social Security Law § 384–d[i], as amended by L 2008, ch 585). Further, "[w]hen the terms of related statutes are involved, as is the case here, they must be analyzed in context and in a manner that ‘harmonize[s] the related provisions ... [and] renders them compatible’ " ( Matter of M.B. , 6 N.Y.3d 437, 447, 813 N.Y.S.2d 349, 846 N.E.2d 794 [2006] ). Here, inasmuch as it is undisputed that petitioner is not "capable of performing the duties of [his] position" ( Retirement and Social Security Law § 384–d[i] ), "the mandatory service retirement age applicable to him" is 62 and, thus, the court properly determined that petitioner was not entitled to the supplemental benefit after he attained that age ( General Municipal Law § 207–a[2] ).
We also conclude that petitioner adduced "no evidence ... to support a finding that [he] ha[d] ‘been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment’ " ( Matter of Gray v. Town of Oppenheim , 289 A.D.2d 743, 745, 734 N.Y.S.2d 343 [3d Dept. 2001], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 606, 746 N.Y.S.2d 456, 774 N.E.2d 221 [2002], quoting Village of Willowbrook v. Olech , 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 [2000] ; see Matter of Sicoli v. Town of Lewiston , 112 A.D.3d 1342, 1343–1344, 977 N.Y.S.2d 835 [4th Dept. 2013] ). Thus, the court properly determined that the record did not support petitioner's contention that respondent denied him equal protection of the law.