| Matter of Jones v New York City Employees' RetirementSys. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02822 [138 AD3d 852] |
| April 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Sheila Jones, Appellant, v NewYork City Employees' Retirement System et al.,Respondents. |
Seelig Law Offices, LLC, New York, NY (Philip H. Seelig of counsel), forappellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Francis F. Caputo andTerri Feinstein Sasanow of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Boardof Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System dated April 12, 2013,which denied the petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirementbenefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-c, thepetitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), datedMarch 20, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner, a correction officer, applied to the New York City Employees'Retirement System (hereinafter NYCERS) for performance of duty disability retirementbenefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-c based,inter alia, on injuries she allegedly sustained to her left knee during an inmate-relatedincident on March 10, 2007, and to her left shoulder during an inmate-related incident onApril 1, 2009. The respondent Medical Board of NYCERS recommended that theapplication be denied. The Medical Board found that, although the petitioner's left kneeand left shoulder conditions were disabling, the left knee condition was not caused by theMarch 10, 2007, incident as the petitioner claimed, and the inmate's act which allegedlycaused her left shoulder injuries on April 1, 2009, was outside the ambit of section 507-c.The petitioner appealed the recommendation, and the respondent Board of Trustees ofNYCERS adopted a resolution denying her application for performance of duty disabilityretirement benefits. The petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceedingseeking review of the Board of Trustees' determination. By judgment dated March 20,2014, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
The Board of Trustees' determination that the petitioner's left shoulder disability wasnot "sustained . . . by, or as a natural and proximate result of, an act of anyinmate" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-cwas supported by some credible evidence in the record and was not arbitrary andcapricious. Accordingly, we do not disturb it (see Matter of Borenstein v New YorkCity Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]; Matter ofCanfora v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art.II, 60 NY2d 347, [*2]351 [1983]; Matter of Fragale vD'Alessandro, 55 AD3d 607, 607-608 [2008]; Matter of Aitola v New York CityEmployees' Retirement Sys., 25 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]; Matter of Russo vBoard of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 143 AD2d 674,676 [1988]). Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record establishesthat the Board of Trustees did not abrogate its duty to independently review the MedicalBoard's recommendation that her left knee disability was not caused by the March 10,2007, inmate-related incident as she claimed (see Matter of Santangelo v Kelly, 81 AD3d 439, 440[2011]; cf. Pamlanye v McGuire, 111 AD2d 721, 723 [1985]; Schlesinger v New York CityEmployees' Retirement Sys., 27 Misc 3d 1040, 1047-1048 [Sup Ct, KingsCounty 2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and Dickerson, JJ., concur.