| Matter of Ruggiere v Bloomberg |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08131 [55 AD3d 840] |
| October 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Julius R. Ruggiere et al., Appellants, v MichaelBloomberg et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and ScottShorr of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the ChiefActuary of the City of New York dated November 30, 2006, that there were insufficient assets to paybenefits in the calendar year 2006 from the Correction Officers' variable supplements funds, thepetitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated May 15,2008, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 16, 2007, denied the petition anddismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
An agency's interpretation of the statutes and regulations that it administers must be " 'given greatweight and judicial deference, so long as the interpretation is neither irrational, unreasonable norinconsistent with the governing statute' " (Matter of Toys "R" Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411,418-419 [1996], quoting Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v Gliedman, 62 NY2d539, 545 [1984]; see Matter of Delillo vNew York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 45 AD3d 682, 683 [2007]). Here,the respondents' interpretation of the term "beneficiary" pursuant to the Administrative Code of the Cityof New York § 13-194 (1) (c) was neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent with thegoverning statute. Moreover, their determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR7803 [3]; Matter of Arrocha v Board of [*2]Educ. of City ofN.Y., 93 NY2d 361, 363 [1999]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 232 [1974]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Florio andLeventhal, JJ., concur.