Nicchia v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicchia v. County of Nassau

43 A.D.3d 823, 844 N.Y.S.2d 324

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 823 (Nicchia v. County of Nassau) 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

Nicchia v. County of Nassau, 43 A.D.3d 823, 844 N.Y.S.2d 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondents dated June 2, 2005, which terminated the petitioner’s benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered Janu[824]*824ary 23, 2006, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is a rational basis in the record for the respondents’ determination terminating his benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c. The objective medical evidence established that the petitioner is physically capable of performing light duty work. Further, the petitioner failed to timely claim his entitlement to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits based upon alleged psychological injuries because such request was not made until approximately four years after the alleged injuries occurred. Consequently, the respondents’ determination terminating the petitioner’s benefits had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Cole-Hatchard v Sherwood, 309 AD2d 933 [2003]; Matter of Miele v Town of Clarkstown, 299 AD2d 362 [2002]).

Further, the petitioner was not entitled to a due process hearing. The relevant collective bargaining agreement specifies that a corrections officer, such as the petitioner, may opt to resolve a dispute regarding General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits by submitting to an independent medical evaluation in lieu of a hearing, the results of which are binding upon all parties. Because the petitioner chose to resolve the instant dispute through a medical examination, he was not entitled to a hearing (see Matter of Gamma v Bloom, 274 AD2d 14 [2000]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondents dated June 2, 2005, which terminated the petitioner’s benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered Janu[824]*824ary 23, 2006, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is a rational basis in the record for the respondents’ determination terminating his benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c. The objective medical evidence established that the petitioner is physically capable of performing light duty work. Further, the petitioner failed to timely claim his entitlement to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits based upon alleged psychological injuries because such request was not made until approximately four years after the alleged injuries occurred. Consequently, the respondents’ determination terminating the petitioner’s benefits had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Cole-Hatchard v Sherwood, 309 AD2d 933 [2003]; Matter of Miele v Town of Clarkstown, 299 AD2d 362 [2002]).

Further, the petitioner was not entitled to a due process hearing. The relevant collective bargaining agreement specifies that a corrections officer, such as the petitioner, may opt to resolve a dispute regarding General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits by submitting to an independent medical evaluation in lieu of a hearing, the results of which are binding upon all parties. Because the petitioner chose to resolve the instant dispute through a medical examination, he was not entitled to a hearing (see Matter of Gamma v Bloom, 274 AD2d 14 [2000]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 823, 844 N.Y.S.2d 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicchia-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack