County of Westchester v. Sheehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

County of Westchester v. Sheehan

292 A.D.2d 486, 741 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 486 (County of Westchester v. Sheehan) 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

County of Westchester v. Sheehan, 292 A.D.2d 486, 741 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recoup benefits paid under General Municipal Law § 207-c and a collective [487]*487bargaining agreement, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 22, 2000, as denied those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and third causes of action, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on those causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

More than an hour before the defendant, a correction officer, was due to report for work, he allegedly was punched by a former inmate in the parking lot of a diner. Although the defendant collected benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c for several months, an arbitrator ruled in September 1995 that his injury had not arisen during the course of his employment, and that he was not entitled to receive benefits under either General Municipal Law § 207-c or the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the CBA).

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the first, second, and third causes of action. The defendant should repay the benefits that he improperly received under General Municipal Law § 207-c and the CBA, as they expressly authorize the payment of benefits only to a correction officer injured in the line of duty. The defendant was not on duty when he was attacked. Accordingly, he was unjustly enriched and must repay those benefits (see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242). As this Court stated on a prior related appeal, recoupment is supported by “a strong public policy in favor of protecting the public fisc and recovering moneys improperly or illegally paid out” (Matter of County of Westchester v Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., 278 AD2d 414, 416; see, Matter of DePoalo v County of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 527, 532).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recoup benefits paid under General Municipal Law § 207-c and a collective [487]*487bargaining agreement, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 22, 2000, as denied those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and third causes of action, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on those causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

More than an hour before the defendant, a correction officer, was due to report for work, he allegedly was punched by a former inmate in the parking lot of a diner. Although the defendant collected benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c for several months, an arbitrator ruled in September 1995 that his injury had not arisen during the course of his employment, and that he was not entitled to receive benefits under either General Municipal Law § 207-c or the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the CBA).

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the first, second, and third causes of action. The defendant should repay the benefits that he improperly received under General Municipal Law § 207-c and the CBA, as they expressly authorize the payment of benefits only to a correction officer injured in the line of duty. The defendant was not on duty when he was attacked. Accordingly, he was unjustly enriched and must repay those benefits (see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242). As this Court stated on a prior related appeal, recoupment is supported by “a strong public policy in favor of protecting the public fisc and recovering moneys improperly or illegally paid out” (Matter of County of Westchester v Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., 278 AD2d 414, 416; see, Matter of DePoalo v County of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 527, 532).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 486, 741 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-westchester-v-sheehan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack