Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Theodore J. WILSON, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL POLICEMEN'S AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner's applications for accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner challenges only the denial of his application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits, which was based upon petitioner's failure to provide the written notice required by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c(e)(a). Petitioner relies on the exception to the notice requirement applicable where notice in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Law was given (see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c[e][b][1] ), but petitioner did not file his written claim for workers' compensation benefits within the 30 day period provided by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Although petitioner apparently gave oral notice of the occurrence and thereby provided the employer with actual knowledge of the occurrence within the 30-day period, which would be sufficient to permit the Workers' Compensation Board to excuse the lack of timely written notice (see, Workers' Compensation Law § 18), “[t]his court has repeatedly stated that a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board to excuse a petitioner's failure to comply with the provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 18 is not binding upon respondent [Comptroller] for accidental disability retirement purposes and does not alter the fact that timely notice of the compensation claim was not given” (Matter of Spahn v. Regan, 163 A.D.2d 642, 643, 558 N.Y.S.2d 274). We see no reason to reach a different conclusion where, as here, the application is for performance of duty disability retirement benefits. Accordingly, inasmuch as none of the exceptions provided by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c(e)(b) is applicable, there is no basis to disturb the determination.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
LAHTINEN, J.
CREW III, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 08, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)