Kreppein v. New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement System

270 A.D.2d 732, 706 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3087
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 23, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 732 (Kreppein v. New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement System) 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
Kreppein v. New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement System, 270 A.D.2d 732, 706 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Carpinello, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a State Trooper, filed an application for disability retirement benefits based upon an injury to his right knee. Following a hearing, the Comptroller denied the application upon finding that petitioner was not incapacitated from performing his duties as a State Trooper. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the Comptroller’s determination.

The testimony of respondent’s orthopedic expert that, based upon a physical examination of petitioner and X rays of the knee, petitioner had no significant disability that would preclude him from performing the duties of a State Trooper, which the Comptroller credited, provides substantial evidence to support the Comptroller’s determination despite the existence of contrary testimony by claimant’s expert (see, Matter of Henshaw v McCall, 242 AD2d 827; Matter of Dubois v McCall, 239 AD2d 774). In view of petitioner’s failure to demonstrate any actual prejudice, the substitution of a new Hearing Officer following the close of the hearing, which was authorized by State Administrative Procedure Act § 303, provides no basis to disturb the determination (see, Matter of Park v Board of Regents, 222 AD2d 946, 949; Matter of Kelly v Duffy, 144 AD2d 792).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Mugglin, JJ., concur. [733]*733Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Related

KT'S Junction, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights
74 A.D.3d 1910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lynn v. Office of the Comptroller
16 A.D.3d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D.2d 732, 706 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreppein-v-new-york-state-local-police-fire-retirement-system-nyappdiv-2000.