Redmond v. Town of Haverstraw
| Decision Date | 17 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2017–00271,Index No. 1077/16 |
| Citation | 107 N.Y.S.3d 42,174 A.D.3d 719 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John REDMOND, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Jason D. Lewis of counsel), for petitioner.
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, N.Y. (Paul J. Sweeney and Lars P. Mead of counsel), for respondents.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Haverstraw and the Town of Haverstraw Police Department dated March 14, 2016, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
On July 25, 2013, the petitioner, a police officer in the Town of Haverstraw, was on duty when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. On October 8, 2014, the petitioner was granted benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c for a cervical strain /cervical radiculopathy injury. He subsequently returned to work on a light-duty assignment. On April 1, 2015, the petitioner was examined by a physician on behalf of the respondents, and the physician reported that the petitioner was capable of returning to work on full duty as a police officer without restrictions. On April 8, 2015, the respondents terminated the benefits and directed the petitioner to return to full duty, without restrictions. The petitioner requested a hearing. Following the hearing, the designated hearing officer recommended that the petitioner be granted General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits. However, on March 14, 2016, the respondents issued a final determination denying the petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c. The respondents determined that, based on the entire record, the petitioner was capable of performing his full duties as a police officer. On March 27, 2016, the respondents notified the petitioner of the determination, terminated his light-duty assignment, and directed the petitioner to return to work full time, without restrictions. The petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which proceeding was transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court dated January 3, 2017.
"Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing at which evidence is taken pursuant to direction of law is limited to a consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence upon the whole record" ( Matter of Campo v. City of Mount Vernon, 156 A.D.3d 694, 694, 67 N.Y.S.3d 277 ). Pursuant to the applicable procedures, which were negotiated between the respondents and the petitioner's union, while the hearing officer was required to issue findings of fact and make a recommendation on the questions certified to him, the appointing authority retained full power and authority to render the final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Jaivon T. (In re ALIYAH T.)
-
Alverson v. Albany Cnty.
...are not free to reject the choice made by the administrative agency where room for choice exists" ( Matter of Redmond v. Town of Haverstraw, 174 A.D.3d 719, 720, 107 N.Y.S.3d 42 [2019] ; see Matter of Barkor v. City of Buffalo, 148 A.D.3d 1655, 1656, 51 N.Y.S.3d 743 [2017] ). Here, conflict......
- Dutchess Cnty. Dep't of Cmty. & Family Servs. v. Newmexico (In re Malcome X.K.)
-
Darre v. Zucker
...an administrative authority, provided that the final determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Redmond v. Town of Haverstraw, 174 A.D.3d 719, 107 N.Y.S.3d 42 ; Matter of Nieto v. DeBuono, 231 A.D.2d 573, 647 N.Y.S.2d 282 ). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contenti......