Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits for a correction officer. The court affirmed the respondent's determination that the petitioner's fall through a trapdoor was a routine mishap rather than the result of an act by an incarcerated individual, as required by statute. Relying on the substantial evidence standard and deferring to the Hearing Officer's credibility findings, the court dismissed the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Hearing Officer’s finding that Wright’s disability was not the result of an act of an incarcerated individual is supported by substantial evidence.
- Whether Wright bears the burden of proving that his disability is the natural and proximate result of an act of an incarcerated individual.
Holdings
- The Hearing Officer’s determination is supported by substantial evidence; therefore the State Comptroller’s denial of benefits is affirmed and the petition is dismissed.
Key quotations
“"Credibility determinations, as well as the resolution of any inconsistencies between the hearing testimony and documentary evidence, are matters for the Hearing Officer and respondent to resolve"”
“"Absent evidence that petitioner's asserted disability 'was the natural and proximate result of an act of any [incarcerated individual]'"”
Factual background
Gary Wright, a correction officer, fell through a trapdoor in a tower while attempting to observe a transport vehicle of incarcerated individuals. He claimed the fall was the result of an act of an incarcerated individual, but contemporaneous reports described the incident as a routine mishap. The Hearing Officer found no evidence of an inmate’s act and denied the disability benefit application.
Procedural history
Petitioner applied for disability retirement benefits and was denied because his injury was not caused by an act of an incarcerated individual. The denial was upheld by a Hearing Officer and affirmed on administrative review. The petitioner then commenced this article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination.