Alverson v. Albany Cnty.

• Decision Date: 13 June 2019
• Docket Number: 527433
• Citation: 105 N.Y.S.3d 566,173 A.D.3d 1415
• Parties: In the Matter of James H. ALVERSON, Petitioner, v. ALBANY COUNTY et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

173 A.D.3d 1415

105 N.Y.S.3d 566

In the Matter of James H. ALVERSON, Petitioner,

v.ALBANY COUNTY et al., Respondents.

527433

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: May 2, 2019

Decided and Entered: June 13, 2019

Ennio J. Corsi, New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Albany (A. Andre Dalbec of counsel), for petitioner.

Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux LLP, Albany (Matthew P. Ryan of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Mulvey, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Mulvey, J.

In 2011, petitioner, a deputy sheriff with respondent Albany County Sheriff's Office, was injured in a work-related motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, while on leave for his injuries, petitioner began receiving pay and benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c. In May 2017, respondent Albany County notified petitioner that his benefits were being terminated because a form provided by one of petitioner's physicians indicated that petitioner was able to return to a modified work position. On the same day, the Sheriff's Office offered petitioner a light-duty assignment and informed him that declining the offer may affect continuation of his General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits. Petitioner declined the offer, citing his injuries, and requested a hearing as provided for in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer issued a report and recommendation finding, among other things, that petitioner's benefits were improperly terminated and recommending that they be reinstated retroactively. Respondent Albany County Sheriff rejected the Hearing Officer's report and recommendation without explanation or findings. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, among other things, to annul the Sheriff's determination, and respondents answered. As the petition raised a question of substantial evidence, Supreme Court transferred the matter to this Court (see CPLR 7804[g] ).¹

The Hearing Officer not only made findings of fact but also concluded that respondents committed multiple procedural errors in terminating petitioner's benefits. The Sheriff, in rejecting the Hearing Officer's recommendation, did not provide any explanation or factual findings; indeed, the Sheriff offered no discussion of the procedural or factual issues. "Administrative findings of fact must be made in such a manner that the parties may be assured that the decision is based on the evidence in the record, uninfluenced by extralegal considerations, so as to permit intelligent challenge by an aggrieved party and adequate judicial review" ( Matter of Ethington v. County of Schoharie , 144 A.D.3d 1473, 1473–1474, 42 N.Y.S.3d 426 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of United Helpers Care, Inc. v. Molik , 164 A.D.3d 1029, 1031, 83 N.Y.S.3d 695 [2018] ). Because we cannot conduct meaningful judicial review due to the Sheriff's failure to make any findings or...