Case ID: ad3d_43/html/0823-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Raymond Nicchia, Appellant, v County of Nassau et al., Respondents.
    [844 NYS2d 324]
   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 January 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.