Matter of Cornacchio v DiNapoli
2009 NY Slip Op 09589 [68 AD3d 1520]
December 24, 2009
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010


In the Matter of John A. Cornacchio, Petitioner,
v
ThomasP. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, Respondent.

[*1]Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, L.L.P., White Plains (Benai L. Lifshitz ofcounsel), for petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.

Kane, 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 whichdenied petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner suffered accidents in 1998 and 1999 while working as a laborer for a municipality.Although the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System found petitioner to bedisabled, it denied his application for disability retirement benefits on the ground that he had notdemonstrated that his disability arose out of either accident. Following a hearing requested bypetitioner, a hearing officer rejected his application for benefits. Respondent accepted thosefindings, prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding.

Respondent has exclusive authority to determine retirement benefit applications, and we willuphold his determination if it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Curtin vHevesi, 57 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2008]). As petitioner had less than 10 years of service at thetime he submitted his disability retirement application, he bore the burden of demonstrating thathe was disabled "as the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by his own willful[*2]negligence sustained in the performance of his duties"(Retirement and Social Security Law § 605 [b] [3]; see Matter of Collins vDiNapoli, 57 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2008]; Matter of De Novio v County ofSchenectady, 293 AD2d 101, 104 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]). Here, anorthopedist who examined petitioner found that the 1998 and 1999 accidents were not producingcauses of his disability and that degenerative conditions attributable to his obesity were theprimary causes. An examining neurologist agreed that conditions related to petitioner's obesitywere "[h]is major problem." Significantly, none of petitioner's medical providers expressed acausal relationship between his work-related accidents and his disability. Accordingly,substantial evidence supports respondent's determination (see Matter of Knox v New YorkState Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 150 AD2d 898, 899 [1989]; Matter ofCohen v Regan, 80 AD2d 703, 703-704 [1981], lv denied 54 NY2d 605 [1981]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.