Majority
—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Following a determination by the State Comptroller that petitioner is entitled to benefits for a disability incurred in the performance of duty (Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c), petitioner applied to respondents for differential disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Respondents denied the application. Supreme Court annulled the determination denying the application and respondents appeal.
Supreme Court properly annulled respondents’ determination. A municipality is bound by the Comptroller’s finding on the issue of disability because the Comptroller has exclusive authority to make that determination (see, Matter of Putnam v City of Watertown, 213 AD2d 974 ; Matter of Dembowski v La Polla, 213 AD2d 972 , lv dismissed 86 NY2d 855 ).
An earlier CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by petitioner to compel the City to pay him differential disability benefits pursuant to section 207-a (2) was dismissed as premature because the City had no opportunity to investigate petitioner’s application for benefits and conduct a hearing in that regard (see, Putnam v City of Watertown, supra). Following an investigation, a hearing and a final determination by the City Manager, petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel payment of those benefits. The dismissal of the first petition
Cases cited
- Putnam v. City of Watertown 213 AD2d 974 p. 1077
- Dembowski v. La Polla 213 AD2d 972 p. 1077
- Ireland v. Zoning Board of Appeals 195 AD2d 155 at 158 p. 1078
- Driscoll v. Department of Fire of City of Syracuse 115 AD2d 300 at 301 p. 1078