| Matter of Cantone v DiNapoli |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03289 [50 AD3d 1307] |
| April 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Peter Cantone, Petitioner, v Thomas P.DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of theSupreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which deniedpetitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
In 1997, petitioner was injured when he tripped and fell over wire spools while attempting toclose a water valve at a municipal water treatment plant. Respondent, finding that petitioner hadnot sustained an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63,denied his subsequent application for accidental disability retirement benefits. This Courtannulled that determination, finding that petitioner's fall did constitute an accident and remittedthe matter to respondent (Matter of Cantone v McCall, 289 AD2d 863 [2001]).Following additional hearings, the Hearing Officer denied petitioner's application, finding that heis not permanently incapacitated from performing his regular job duties. Respondent made asupplemental finding of fact, but upheld the Hearing Officer's decision. Petitioner thereaftercommenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the determination.
Respondent now concedes that the Hearing Officer, when determining if petitioner was [*2]permanently disabled as a result of his accident, never consideredtestimony taken at hearings held in 1999. Notably, this testimony included that of petitioner andpetitioner's treating physician. Furthermore, the supplemental findings of fact failed to addressthe apparent oversight. As the Hearing Officer failed to consider the bulk of petitioner's medicalevidence, we find that the decision lacked an adequate statement of the factual basis for denyingthe application and, therefore, we are prevented from determining whether respondent'sconclusions have a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Montauk Improvement vProccacino, 41 NY2d 913, 914 [1977]; Matter of Bierenbaum v Goord, 13 AD3d 945, 946 [2004]).Accordingly, the determination must be annulled. Petitioner's remaining contentions have beenconsidered and found to be either unpersuasive or academic.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isannulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings notinconsistent with this Court's decision.