| Matter of Emerson v DiNapoli |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03025 [72 AD3d 1321] |
| April 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Iris N. Emerson, Petitioner, v Thomas P.DiNapoli, asState Comptroller, Respondent. |
—[*1]
McCarthy, 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 applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirementbenefits.
Petitioner was employed as a police officer. In one particular incident in April 1997, whilepetitioner was working undercover investigating drug dealers who were also suspected of rapingwomen, she was apparently given a date rape drug, assaulted and almost raped by a target of theinvestigation. In September 2000, petitioner resigned as part of a plea agreement stemming fromher theft of at least one credit card. She then applied for accidental and performance of dutydisability retirement benefits. Respondent disapproved both applications. Following a hearing,the Hearing Officer recommended denial of the applications, finding that petitioner was disabledas a result of her psychiatric condition but that the April 1997 incident was not the proximatecause of her disability. Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge respondent'sdetermination, which adopted that recommendation.[*2]
We confirm. The New York State and Local Police andFire Retirement System conceded that the April 1997 incident qualified as an accident and thatpetitioner was totally disabled from performing her job duties due to her psychiatric condition.The only contested issue was whether petitioner's disability was proximately caused by the April1997 incident. Petitioner bore the burden of proving proximate cause (see Matter of Feeney v DiNapoli, 68AD3d 1425, 1426 [2009]). Petitioner's doctors opined that her condition was related tostressors from her job, but none limited the causation to the April 1997 incident. In addition tostressors from 16 years as a police officer, including more than six years in narcotics, petitioner'smedical records indicate that she experienced depression and anxiety due to the deaths of closefamily members, marital discord and a divorce from her second husband, a disappointingcustody situation, and the criminal charges that ultimately required her to resign from her job.Respondent accepted the opinion of the Retirement System's expert, who found no causalrelationship between the one cited incident and petitioner's disability. Considering the variouspotential sources of mental distress that confronted petitioner, the generalized opinions ofpetitioner's doctors, and respondent's authority to resolve conflicts among expert opinions,substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner failed to meet her burdenof proving the causal relationship between her disability and the April 1997 incident (see Matter of Schine v Hevesi, 40AD3d 1362, 1363-1364 [2007]; Matter of Capparella v McCall, 7 AD3d 875, 876 [2004]).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinationis confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.