| Matter of Kratunis v DiNapoli |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02276 [60 AD3d 1250] |
| March 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Steven C. Kratunis, Petitioner, v ThomasP. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order ofthe Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent whichdenied petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a plant utility engineer at Stony Brook University Medical Center in SuffolkCounty, retired from his position in 2004 due to a heart condition. He thereafter filed anapplication for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Lawarticle 15. His application was initially denied and he requested a hearing. At the conclusion ofthe hearing at which both he and the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement Systempresented evidence, the Hearing Officer denied his application on the ground that he did notdemonstrate that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties.Respondent accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. "To establish entitlement to disability retirement benefits under Retirement andSocial Security Law article 15, petitioner is required to establish permanent incapacity fromperforming the duties of his regular employment" (Matter of Regan v New York State & Local Employees' RetirementSys., 14 AD3d 927, 928 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 709[*2][2005] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Hall v McCall, 2 AD3d 1026, 1026 [2003]). In thisregard, it is important to note that respondent is vested with the authority to weigh conflictingmedical evidence and to credit the opinion of one medical expert over that of another (see Matter of Merring v Hevesi, 29AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2006]; Matter of Hall v McCall, 2 AD3d at 1027).Respondent's determination will be upheld "if supported by credible evidence 'in the form of anarticulated, rational, and fact-based medical opinion' " (Matter of Hoehn v Hevesi, 14 AD3d 761, 762 [2005], lvdenied 4 NY3d 708 [2005], quoting Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. CityFire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139, 148 [1997]).
In the case at hand, conflicting medical evidence was presented concerning the extent ofpetitioner's disability. The cardiologist who examined petitioner on behalf of the RetirementSystem gave extensive testimony regarding his examination of petitioner and the seriousness ofhis condition, opining that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing hisduties as a plant utility engineer. Respondent chose to credit this testimony over the medicalreports of petitioner's treating physicians. Inasmuch as respondent's determination was basedupon the articulated, rational and fact-based opinion of the Retirement System's cardiologist, wedecline to disturb it.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.