WILEY v. HILLER (2000)

 Supreme Court erred in annulling respondent City Manager's determination to terminate petitioner's General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits on the ground that respondents should have commenced an action in Supreme Court to terminate such benefits.  “While the General Municipal Law does not provide an administrative framework for making disability determinations, courts have long recognized the appropriateness of administrative hearings for that purpose” (Matter of Giorgio v. Bucci, 267 A.D.2d 924, 700 N.Y.S.2d 561).   Rather, the court should have transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).

 We conclude that the City Manager's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, despite the existence of evidence to support a contrary result (see generally, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179-180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183).   The City Manager's determination was properly based upon petitioner's submissions to the United States Coast Guard, including the statement of petitioner that he was operating a boat “for hire” while he was receiving benefits.   The existence of “other evidence (even the greater weight of the evidence) supporting an opposing determination merely created a credibility issue for the [City Manager's] determination in the exercise of [his] exclusive fact-finding authority” (Matter of Eisner, 252 A.D.2d 847, 848, 675 N.Y.S.2d 700, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 946, 681 N.Y.S.2d 476, 704 N.E.2d 229;  see, Matter of Westney, 262 A.D.2d 894, 896, 692 N.Y.S.2d 501).

 Because the court determined that respondents must commence a civil action, it did not address petitioner's remaining contentions.   We conclude, however, that those contentions lack merit.   Petitioner contends that he was denied due process at the administrative hearing.   We disagree.   Petitioner had “a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on his behalf and cross-examine opposing witnesses” (Matter of Furch v. Bucci, 245 A.D.2d 749, 750, 666 N.Y.S.2d 300, lv. dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 953, 671 N.Y.S.2d 711, 694 N.E.2d 880).   Petitioner further contends that General Municipal Law § 207-a (6) does not apply to a retired firefighter.   Petitioner continued to receive General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits in addition to his disability retirement benefits, however, and General Municipal Law § 207-a (6) applies to “[a]ny fireman receiving payments or benefits pursuant to [section 207-a]”.

Judgment unanimously vacated, determination confirmed without costs and petition dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: