IN RE: Joseph Relyea

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Joseph Relyea, appellant, v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, respondent.

2010–12108 (Index No. 1596/10)

Decided: January 17, 2012

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J. DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO RUTH C. BALKIN CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ. Joseph Relyea, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. James B. Henly, New York, N.Y. (Ching Wah Chin of counsel), for respondent.

Argued—December 15, 2011


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.



Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard