Court Opinion

ID: 9958718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:53.630965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.286686
License: Public Domain

Pastrana v New York City Fire Pension Fund
               2024 NY Slip Op 31118(U)
                      April 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160515/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          160515/2023
             OBRIAN PASTRANA,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND, BOARD OF
             TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
             FUND, CITY OF NEW YORK                                                                      MOTION

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
            53, 54,
            were read on this motion to/for                                           REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION                   .

                      Petitioner’s motion to reargue is granted and, upon rearguement, the Court adheres to its

            prior determination although for the reasons described below.

            Background

                      In this proceeding concerning petitioner’s application for Accident Disability Retirement

            (“ADR”) benefits, this Court previously denied the petition (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46).

                      Petitioner explains that this Court misapprehended the fact that petitioner was evaluated

            twice by the Medical Board for two separate physical conditions. One evaluated him for his

            respiratory function and the other for his cardiovascular function. He acknowledges that he did

            not contest the Medical Board finding that found that his respiratory tract was fine but that he

            does challenge the Medical Board finding regarding his cardiovascular function. That decision

            granted him Ordinary Disability Retirement (“ODR”). Petitioner argues that the primary issue in

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                                  Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            this proceeding is whether his permanent disability in the cardiovascular Medical Board

            evaluation is an accident for purposes of granting him ADR.

                   The Court observes that respondents filed opposition but the Court did not consider it as

            it was not filed timely; the notice of motion set the return date for April 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. and

            respondent filed its opposition in the afternoon on April 1, 2024.

            Discussion

                   As an initial matter, petitioner is correct that this Court misapprehended the fact that there

            were two separate Medical Board findings and apologizes for the need to make the motion to

            reargue. The Court will therefore address the key issue according to petitioner—whether his

            apparent adverse reaction to receiving the COVID-19 is an accident that entitles him to receive

            ADR.

                   “In an article 78 proceeding, the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis and

            was not arbitrary and capricious” (Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d

            587 [2013] [internal quotations and citation omitted]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious

            when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (id.). “If the determination

            has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable”

            (id.). “Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to

            the facts” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale

            & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231, 356 NYS2d 833 [1974]).

                   “Applying for ADR involves a two step process. Initially, the pension fund’s Medical

            Board conducts a physical examination, interviews the applicant, and reviews the submitted

            evidence, before submitting a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. In the second step, the

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            Board of Trustees votes to either grant or deny ADR benefits” (Stavropoulos v Bratton, 148

            AD3d 449, 450, 50 NYS3d 2 [1st Dept 2017]).

                   “ADR benefits are awardable only where the individual's disability was the natural and

            proximate result of a service-related accident, i.e., a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected,

            out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact” (Rivera v Bd. of Trustees of N.Y. Fire Dept., 220

            AD3d 584, 585, 198 NYS3d 680 [1st Dept 2023]). “In the context of ADR benefits, the Court of

            Appeals has defined an accident as a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the

            ordinary, and injurious in impact, while an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as

            the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in

            view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury” (Pastalove v Kelly,

            120 AD3d 419, 420, 991 NYS2d 39 [1st Dept 2014]).

                   Here, petitioner was found to be permanently disabled after being evaluated for

            cardiovascular functioning by the Medical Board, which awarded him ODR and the Board of

            Trustees agreed. The Court finds that petitioner’s disability was not the result of a service-

            related accident under the caselaw cited above. In this Court’s view, getting a vaccine is not an

            unexpected event. It is more akin to the case cited by respondents in their initial opposition,

            Rivera, where a firefighter was awarded only ODR when he suffered a leg injury after becoming

            dehydrated while training as a firefighter (Rivera, 220 AD3d at 584-85). The First Department

            found that such an injury was “incidental—not accidental” and that it arose out of his

            performance of “routine duties, not as a result of an unexpected event” (id. at 585). The

            appellate court also found that the dehydration was “a foreseeable risk” (id.).

                   Here, getting the vaccine was not an unexpected event – it was not an accident.

            Petitioner knew he was getting the vaccine and was complying with the vaccine mandate.

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 160515/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            Unfortunately, he experienced incidental consequences from that expected vaccine. Of course,

            the bad consequences he suffered led to him receiving ODR. But this Court is unable to find that

            petitioner’s physical ailments were the result of an accident as defined under the relevant

            caselaw. As noted above, an accident for purposes of awarding ADR arises where a firefighter

            suffers injuries from a sudden event rather than from adverse consequences from a planned

            event.

                      Accordingly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reargue is granted and, upon reargument, this

            Court adheres to its previous determination albeit on the different basis described above; and it is

            further

                      ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

            disbursements.

                      4/2/2024                                                          $SIG$
                       DATE                                                     ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                X   CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                    □
                                           GRANTED             DENIED   GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                    □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             160515/2023 PASTRANA, OBRIAN vs. NEW YORK CITY FIRE PENSION FUND ET AL                      Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]