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: Joseph Relyea, appellant, v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, respondent.
Argued—December 15, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority dated November 7, 2007, which denied the petitioner's application for a disability pension, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 22, 2010, which, without a hearing, denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“Generally, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, [courts] examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts' ” (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280, quoting Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 232), or where it is “arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Deerpark Farms, LLC v Agricultural & Farmland Protection Bd. of Orange County, 70 AD3d 1037, 1038; see Matter of Ignizio v. City of New York, 85 AD3d 1171, 1174). Here, the determination of the respondent that the petitioner was not eligible for a disability pension was not arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner did not have the required 10 years of credited service in order to be eligible for a disability pension.
MASTRO, A.P.J., ANGIOLILLO, BALKIN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–12108 (Index No. 1596 /10)
Decided: January 17, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)