Opinion
2001-06157
Submitted November 18, 2002.
December 9, 2002.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Chief of Police of the Police Department of the Town of Greenburgh, dated November 3, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), entered May 23, 2001, which denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the determination.
Freedman, Wagner, Tabakman Weiss, New City, N.Y. (David MacRae Wagner of counsel), for appellant.
Vincent Toomey, Lake Success, N.Y., for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner, a police officer, injured his back moving a box of teletype machine paper refills with his foot while on duty as a dispatcher in the communications unit of the police station. He was performing the same tasks that would have been performed by a civilian dispatcher in the absence of a police officer. After a hearing, his application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c was denied by the Chief of the Police Department of the Town of Greenburgh. The petitioner challenges this determination as arbitrary and capricious.
"General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were meant to fulfill a narrow and important purpose. The goal is to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties. These functions are keyed to `the criminal justice process, including investigations, presentencing, criminal supervision, treatment and other preventative corrective services'" (Matter of Balcerak v. County of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253, 259, quoting Senate Mem in Support, L 1997, ch 675, 1997 N.Y. Legis Ann, at 458; see Matter of White v. County of Cortland, 97 N.Y.2d 336, 339). Since the type of special work in question was not involved here, the determination denying the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Clements v. Panzarella, 297 A.D.2d 4; Matter of Sills v. Livingston, 294 A.D.2d 922; Matter of Sutherland v. Village of Suffern, 289 A.D.2d 582; Matter of Ertner v. County of Chenango, 280 A.D.2d 851, 852).
SANTUCCI, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.