| Matter of Ortiz v DiNapoli |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06357 [98 AD3d 1224] |
| September 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Francisco Ortiz,Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, 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 which deniedpetitioner's applications for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a police detective, applied for accidental and performance of duty disabilityretirement benefits in 2007, claiming that he is unable to perform his duties due to a back injurysustained in 1999 while assisting a colleague move a file cabinet up a flight of stairs. Followingthe initial denial of his applications, petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination. AHearing Officer denied the applications, finding, among other things, that although petitioner wasincapacitated from the performance of his duties, he had not established that he was incapacitatedas a result of an accident or a disability sustained in service. Respondent, among other things,adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Respondent relied on the medical opinion of John Mazella, a board-certifiedorthopaedist who examined petitioner on behalf of the New York State and Local [*2]Retirement Systems. Following a physical examination of petitionerand review of relevant medical records, Mazella ultimately concluded that, although petitionerwas permanently disabled, the 1999 incident was not the competent producing cause ofpetitioner's disability, nor was it related to his occupation. Noting that petitioner had lost no timefrom work and continued on full duty status until 2007, Mazella opined that petitioner's disabilitywas the result of developmental degenerative aging changes. Mazella's rational and fact-basedmedical opinion provides substantial evidence to support respondent's determination andtherefore it will not be disturbed (seeMatter of Space v DiNapoli, 96 AD3d 1226 [2012]; Matter of Steinberg v DiNapoli, 93 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2012]),despite the fact that there is other medical evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion(see Matter of Browne v DiNapoli,85 AD3d 1535, 1536 [2011]). In view of the foregoing, petitioner's remaining contentionchallenging the denial of his application for accidental disability retirement benefits is renderedacademic (see Matter of Ferris vDiNapoli, 92 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2012]).
Peters, P.J., Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.