October 2021, a police officer [Petitioner] employed by a New York State village police department responded to an emergency welfare call that culminated in a confrontation during which Petitioner fatally shot an individual.
Placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, Petitioner returned to work after being cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2022, Petitioner left work on sick leave after disclosing concerns regarding his mental health to the Village's Chief of Police.
Petitioner began meeting with a clinical social worker and, on June 29, 2022, he was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] stemming from the October 2021 incident. Petitioner then spoke with the Chief of Police about applying for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits. In accordance with the Police Chief's instructions, Petitioner promptly submitted various supporting documents and also submitted his completed application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits to the Mayor of the Village.
The Mayor acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's application but Petitioner's application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits was denied as untimely under the applicable collective bargaining agreement [CBA] which required that such an application had to be made within 10 business days of when the individual "reasonably should have known of the illness or injury giving rise to his claim".
Petitioner challenged the denial of his application a provided by the relevant CBA grievance process and an arbitration hearing was conducte.
The arbitrator issued a written recommendation that the Village [Respondent] exercise discretion available to it under the CBA to overlook any untimeliness in Petitioner's application and grant him General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits. The Respondents rejected the arbitrator's recommendation and denied Petitioner's application General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits.
Petitioner initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Respondent's determination. Respondents moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Article 78 petition for failure to state a cause of action.
Supreme Court, reaching the merits of the Respondent's determination:
1. Held that the Respondents' determination was not improper; and
2. Held the Respondents' determination was supported by substantial evidence, and
3. Dismissed Plaintiff's Article 78 Petition.
Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.
The Appellate Division found that the Respondents' determination that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause for the minor delay in the submission of his application for accidental disability retirement "is unsupported by substantial evidence" and opined that it "wholeheartedly agree with the arbitrator that denying [Petitioner's] application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits would be a travesty".
The Appellate Division annulled the Supreme Court's judgement and remitted the matter to the Respondents "for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] decision".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.