IN RE: Thomas CORDWAY (2018)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.], entered October 16, 2017) to review a determination of respondents.  The determination terminated benefits petitioner was receiving pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207–c.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the amended petition is dismissed.

Memorandum:  Petitioner, a deputy sheriff, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination that terminated the disability benefits he had been receiving under General Municipal Law § 207–c.  The Hearing Officer issued a report recommending that petitioner's continued receipt of benefits be terminated.  Contrary to petitioner's contention, we see no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination terminating the benefits.

We conclude that the Hearing Officer's determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Quintana v. City of Buffalo, 114 A.D.3d 1222, 1223–1224, 979 N.Y.S.2d 760 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 902, 2014 WL 1775991 [2014] ).  Here, although petitioner presented evidence that his alleged injuries and ailments were causally related to the work-related slip and fall, respondents presented evidence to the contrary.  “[T]he Hearing Officer was entitled to weigh the parties' conflicting medical evidence and to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and [w]e may not weigh the evidence or reject [the Hearing Officer's] choice where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists” (Matter of Erie County Sheriff's Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. County of Erie, 159 A.D.3d 1561, 1562, 74 N.Y.S.3d 432 [4th Dept. 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Contrary to petitioner's remaining contention, respondents' initial award of section 207–c benefits does not require the continuation of such benefits inasmuch as “[t]he continued receipt of section 207–c disability payments is not absolute” (Matter of Park v. Kapica, 8 N.Y.3d 302, 310, 832 N.Y.S.2d 885, 864 N.E.2d 1284 [2007] ).