Lowther v. County of Rockland

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a hearing officer dated November 24, 2012, made after a hearing, which confirmed a determination of the Rockland County Sheriff dated May 12, 2011, denying the

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,

Adjudged that the determination dated November 24, 2012, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

When a petition raises a question of whether an administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence, the proceeding should be transferred from the Supreme Court to this Court to address that issue (see CPLR 7804 [g]). As a result, we will treat this matter as one which had been transferred here by the Supreme Court and review the administrative determination de novo (see Matter of Sullivan v County of Rockland, 121 AD3d 700 [2d Dept 2014]; Matter of Konstas v Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 104 AD3d 689 [2013]; Matter of Wynne v Town of Ramapo, 286 AD2d 338 , 339 [2001]).

The standard of review in an administrative determination made after a hearing is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 , 181-182 [1978]). The test of whether the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence is whether, on the record, a reasonable person might have made the findings and conclusions made by the administrative agency (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d at 443 ; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 , 180-181 [1978]).

In order to be eligible for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, a covered municipal employee must prove a direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury (see Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d 232 [2003]; Matter of White v County of Cortland, 97 NY2d 336 , 340 [2002]; Matter of Tancredi v Town of Harrison/Vil. of Harrison Police Dept., 72 AD3d 832 [2010]; Matter of Schmidt v Putnam County Off. of Sheriff, 49 AD3d 761 [2008]). Here, the determination that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of DiMeglio v Village of Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., 67 AD3d 908 [2009]; Matter of Wynne v Town of Ramapo, 286 AD2d 338 [2001]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P, Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.