Opinion
October 16, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
The statements made to petitioner by respondent's agent in response to petitioner's initial request for reconsideration of respondent's denial of accidental retirement, to the effect that there could be no reconsideration in the absence of new evidence, were not erroneous, and, even if erroneous, should not have been understood as permission to resubmit the claim any time in the future once new evidence became available, and could not have created a right to benefits to which there was no entitlement ( see, Matter of Baker v. Regan, 114 A.D.2d 187, 192, and 68 N.Y.2d 335; New York State Med. Transporters Assn. v. Perales, 77 N.Y.2d 126, 130-131). Therefore, denial of reconsideration on the ground that petitioner was no longer eligible for disability retirement under Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-a, having failed to apply for such within three months of his termination for reasons unrelated to any disability, was not an abuse of discretion. We would also note that the finding of disability by the Workers' Compensation Board on which petitioner relies is not sufficient to show entitlement to an accidental retirement ( see, Matter of Torres v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 160 A.D.2d 578, 579).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.