Chadha v. County of Nassau

• Decision Date: 09 March 1998
• Citation: 669 N.Y.S.2d 370,248 A.D.2d 465
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2002 In the Matter of Elizabeth CHADHA, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 370

669 N.Y.S.2d 370

248 A.D.2d 465, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2002

In the Matter of Elizabeth CHADHA, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

March 9, 1998.

Louis D. Stober, Jr., L.L.C., Garden City (David G. Sullivan, Jr., of counsel), for petitioner.

Owen B. Walsh, County Attorney, Mineola (Catherine M. Van Der Waag, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, MILLER and KRAUSMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent County of Nassau, dated June 13, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the petitioner was capable of returning to a light-duty assignment, and directed that sick leave shall be charged to the petitioner from December 11, 1995, until the date of her return to work.

ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, to the extent that the determination is modified by deleting the provision thereof which directed that sick leave shall be charged to the petitioner from December 11, 1995, until the date of her return to work, and substituting therefor a provision stating that sick leave shall not be charged retroactively to the petitioner for the period commencing December 11, 1995, to June 13, 1996; as so modified, the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner, a Deputy Sheriff in the County of Nassau Sheriff's Department, sustained numerous on-the-job injuries to her spine and neck. The petitioner was placed on work-related disability leave pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c. By internal correspondence from the County of Nassau (hereinafter the County) dated December 4, 1995, the petitioner was directed to return to full duty effective December 11, 1995, pursuant to a finding of the County's medical consultant that she was fit for full duty. The correspondence stated that if the petitioner disagreed with the determination concerning her fitness for duty, she would be entitled to a hearing. The correspondence further stated that if the petitioner refused to work until the hearing was completed, she would remain on work-related disability leave. However, if it was determined after a hearing that the petitioner was capable of performing the "specified duty", she would be charged the appropriate number of sick days for the period of time commencing with her refusal to work, and any payment made pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c would cease. The petitioner refused to return to work on December 11, 1995, pending a hearing.

After a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the Hearing Officer determined that the petitioner was fit for light duty and that the leave time previously charged as work-related disability leave should retroactively be charged to the petitioner's sick leave, commencing with the petitioner's refusal to work on December 11, 1995. These findings were adopted by the County.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, she was afforded notice that suitable light duty may be assigned following a hearing adjudicating her return to duty. The notice was sufficient to enable her to adequately prepare a defense (see, Matter of Fitzgerald v. Libous, 44 N.Y.2d 660, 405 N.Y.S.2d 32, 376 N.E.2d 192; Matter of Rivera v. Rozzi, 149 A.D.2d 514, 539 N.Y.S.2d 991).

Moreover, there was substantial evidence and a rational...