Brzostek v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brzostek v. City of Syracuse

266 A.D.2d 836, 697 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 836 (Brzostek v. City of Syracuse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brzostek v. City of Syracuse, 266 A.D.2d 836, 697 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without fiosts, amended petition granted in part and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: We previously held that petitioner was entitled to a determination on the merits of his request for General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits (Matter of Brzostek v City of Syracuse, 238 AD2d 947, 948, lv dismissed 92 NY2d 1026). The parties did not, however, create an administrative record for judicial review, but instead submitted a set of stipulated facts to Supreme Court, allowing the court to review the matter de novo. That was error. The administrative determination must be made by the appropriate agency in the first instance, with the burden on petitioner to establish that he is eligible for benefits. That determination is then subject to judicial review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the amended petition insofar as it seeks to compel respondents to determine the merits of petitioner’s application and remit the matter to respondents for an initial determination of petitioner’s application for General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without fiosts, amended petition granted in part and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: We previously held that petitioner was entitled to a determination on the merits of his request for General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits (Matter of Brzostek v City of Syracuse, 238 AD2d 947, 948, lv dismissed 92 NY2d 1026). The parties did not, however, create an administrative record for judicial review, but instead submitted a set of stipulated facts to Supreme Court, allowing the court to review the matter de novo. That was error. The administrative determination must be made by the appropriate agency in the first instance, with the burden on petitioner to establish that he is eligible for benefits. That determination is then subject to judicial review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the amended petition insofar as it seeks to compel respondents to determine the merits of petitioner’s application and remit the matter to respondents for an initial determination of petitioner’s application for General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 836, 697 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brzostek-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack