Matter of Martin v. N.Y.C. Employees Ret. Sys.

Decided: January 8, 2018¹Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of petition and petition of Minisa Martin (hereinafter Martin), filed on April 27, 2017, under motion sequence number one, for an order reversing the decision of the N.Y.C. Employees Retirement System (hereinafter NYCERS), New York City Department of Sanitation, and NYCERS Medical Board (hereinafter the City Respondents) to deny Martin accidental disability retirement (hereinafter ADR) benefits.Notice of petitionVerified PetitionVerified AnswerExhibits A-BBMemorandum in support of the City Respondent’s verified answerMartin’s Reply papersDECISION & ORDERBACKGROUND

*1  By notice of petition and verified petition dated November 12, 2013, Martin commenced an Article 78 proceeding in New York County under index number 101491/2013 seeking a judgment vacating the administrative determination issued by NYCERS dated July 12, 2013 and directing NYCERS to issue her ADR benefits. Martin filed an amended notice of petition on April 14, 2014. By stipulation dated July 3, 2014, Martin and the respondents agreed to transfer to Kings County the Article 78 aforementioned proceeding pending in New York County because Kings County was the judicial district in which NYCERS made the determination. On August 2015, the transfer to Kings County occurred and index number 10603/2015 was assigned to the instant matter. By verified answer dated June 1, 2017, the City Respondent’s joined issue. The City Respondent’s verified answer contains forty nine allegations of fact and seven affirmative defenses.Martin’s notice of petition, verified petition and accompanying document seeks to vacate and reverse a decision by the City Respondents to deny her application for ADR benefits. Martin’s commencement papers, however, are not supported by any affidavits, factual allegation, citation to legal authority or argument explaining her entitlement to the relief sought. It is petitioner’s burden to establish that her injuries resulted from an accident as defined in the context of ADR (Pastalove v. Kelly, 120 AD3d 419 [1st Dept 2014], citing, Matter of Brown v. Kelly, 100 AD3d 480 [1st Dept 2013]). The petitioner also has the burden to show that the determination of the City Respondent was improper,