| Matter of Hogg-Chapman v New York State Teachers' RetirementSys. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02994 [83 AD3d 1261] |
| April 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Cheryl Hogg-Chapman, Appellant, v NewYork State Teachers' Retirement System, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.), entered January 25,2010 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toCPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's application fordisability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a former school counselor, applied for disability retirement benefits in November2007 after falling on the stairs at work. After a review of petitioner's medical records,respondent's Medical Board concluded that there was no basis upon which to grant petitioner'srequest for disability retirement benefits and informed petitioner it would be recommending suchto respondent. Thereafter, by letter dated August 8, 2008, respondent notified petitioner that itaccepted the Medical Board's recommendation, and her application for disability retirementbenefits was denied. In April 2009, petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging theAugust 2008 determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the instantchallenge was barred by the applicable four-month statute of limitations, and this appeal ensued.
Pursuant to CPLR 217 (1), "a proceeding against a body or officer must be commencedwithin four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon thepetitioner." To that end, "an administrative determination becomes final and binding when it[*2]definitively impacts and aggrieves the party seeking judicialreview" (Matter of Scott v City ofAlbany, 1 AD3d 738, 739 [2003]). Here, there is no dispute that respondent notifiedpetitioner in August 2008 that her application for disability retirement benefits was denied.Petitioner's submission to the Medical Board of additional medical evidence and her request thatit reconsider its recommendation did not serve to toll the statute of limitations period or makerespondent's determination any less final (see Matter of Paterson v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 25AD3d 899, 900 [2006]; Matter of Alterra Healthcare Corp. v Novello, 306 AD2d787, 788-789 [2003]; Matter of Crest Mainstream v Mills, 262 AD2d 846, 847 [1999]).Accordingly, inasmuch as this proceeding was commenced more than four months afterrespondent rendered its determination, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as timebarred.
Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, withoutcosts.