Caputo v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Caputo v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys. 2018 NY Slip Op 32735(U) October 2, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 502713/2018 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. -:.•. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2018 03:23 PM / NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 INDEX NO. 502713/2018 [. ~ RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2018 ".-. At LA.S. Part 22 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York, on the 2nd day of October 2018. •..' PRE SENT: Honorable Reginald A..Boddie Justice, SupremeGourt .•.. ---------~------------------------------------------------~--------x CHRIST~)PHER CAPUTO, \ Index No. 502713/2018 Cal. NO.1 Petitioner, -against- > j DECISION AND ORDER . NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT' SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the New -York City Employees' Retirement System, THE MEDICAL BOARD of the New York City Employees' Retirement System, and THE cqy OF NEW YORK, Respondents. :;, ----------7-------------------------------------------------------x I R~citation, as required byCPLR .., S 2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: ,,-,... ~.d. ~'; ' ~ .. ; Numbered 1-2 3 4 5 6 Papers Amended Verified Petition & Annexed Affirmation! Affidavits Petitioner's Memorandum of Law Verified Answer Respondent's Memorandum of Law Reply 1\ I Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after oral argument, the decision and order on the petition, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, is as follows: ~ ,... Petitioner, a Sanitation' Worker for the N eWY ork City Department of Sanitation since o .' 2005, was involved in an automobile acc}denton August 10,2011. Petitioner alleged significant injuries to his right knee and right shoulder. Petitioner sought a disability retirement pension 1 i I. 1\ ~ 1 of 4 ~_J [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2018 03:23 PM I INDEX NO. 502713/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2018 ! I j pursuant to the Retirement and Social Security Law 9 605 and 60S-b. On April 13,2017, the I Board of Trustees adopted the Medical Board's September 6,2016 recommendation and denied I . petitioner's application. Petitioner filed another application on June 7, 2017, which was referred l . . by the Medical Board to the Medical Unit to determinewbether , the evidence received with the June 5 application was sufficien~ to schedule petitioner for an interview examination. The , L , " Medical Unit responded it was not without providing a rationale for. its conclusion. On August . .'\ 30,2017, petitioner provided additional medical documentation to support the June 7 ; ( \ application, but the application was erroneously closed on October 17,2017, without consideration of this documentation. Petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding on February (' 8,2018, which was resolved by stipulatIon dated June 22, 2018, wherein NYCERS' agreed to withdraw the October 17,2017 determination and issue a new final determination of petitioner's June 7, 2017, application. On July 16, 2018, the Medical Board reviewed the evidence submitted by petitioner on August 30,2017, determined it ~id not warrant further consideration, and denied . ' petitioner's June 7 disability retirement applications. Petitioner commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding on July 30, 2018, seeking to annul the July 16 determination of the Medical Board on the grounds that the decision lacked a rationale and was therefore, arbitrary and capricious. • .. & The Medical Board determines whether a member applying for accidental disability' retirement benefits is disabled (see Administrative Code of the City of New York 913-167 [b]; Matter of Vargas v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 95 AD 3d 1345, 1346 [2d Dept 2012]. The Board .of Trustees is bound by the Medical Boards's determination as to whether an '_. . applicant is disabled (Matter of Vargas, 95 AD?d at 1345 citing Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art.l-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139, 144' [199?]; Matter 2 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2018 03:23 PM ,I NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 I INDEX NO. 502713/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2018 of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760 [1-996]; Matter of Zamelsky v New York City Employees' Retire.ment System, 5 AD3d 844,845 [2d Dept 2008]). The Medical Board's determination is c6nclusiveif it is supported by substantial evidence, which \ in disability cases hasb'een construed as some credible evidence, and is not irr<;ttional(Matter of I . } I I . Vargas, 95 AD3d at 1345; Matter of Borenstein, 88 NY2d:-at 760). Copsequently, the court's j function in an Article 78 proceeding is to determine if the determination of the administrative I , agency is supported by credible evidence, odsarb}trary \ and capricio~s (Maiter of Pell v Board of Educ. o/Union Free School Dist. NO.1 o/Townso/Searsdale I \ & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222,230 [1974]). \ Respondent averred, 1 The determination of sufficiency_ [~t issue here] is specific to the disability application and depends on a variety bf fact~rs, including but not limited to, the ailments for which the disability applications are filed, the type of line of duty incidentsan~ injuries, etc:, and is based 9n the member of the ~edical Board's review of, inter alia; the source of the medical evidence (e.g. whether it is from doctor(s) and/or experts -in the relevant field), the type of medical evidence (e.g. whether it is an objective test (NiRls, X-Rays,EKG, or CT Scans) orrestaternent of an applicant' s complaint~; and the existence of allYnew findings and/or change, including improvement ofoJ;1e's condition, from previously submitted documents, etc. In supportofits position, respondent proffered the affidavit of Dr. John Daly, dated September 12, 2018, to explain his notation,s'in the June 26, 2017 merrlorandum, attached as ~ ,: . ' respondent's exhibit 20. Dr. Daly alleged he reviewed the medical evidence submitted through r . ' August 30, 2017, and found no new objective documentation to warra~t further consideration. This memorandum formed the basis of the July 16,2018 denial, attached as respondent's exhibit 25. However, the memorandum dated June 26,2017, and the July 16,2018 denial, contain conclusory denials ofpetitiorier's application. Neither document contained a rational specific to 3 .!\. 3 of 4 f~ __ ~~. [* 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2018 03:23 PM ,I FILED: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 INDEX NO. 502713/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2018 ( petitioner's application or cited any of the above mentioned formed th~ basis of its determination. Board is arbitrary and capricious, Accordingly, factors which respondent argue the Court finds the decision of the Medical and the application is xemanded for a review de novo by the full medical board. E N T E R: .'.,&6 . Hon. Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court , ; ! " ~ " I 4 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.