Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:Papers NumberedNotice of Verified Petition with Accompanying Affidavits and Exhibits 1Respondent’s Verified Answer to Petition with Accompanying Affidavits and Exhibits 2Respondent’s Memorandum of Law 3Petitioner’s Reply Affirmation 4For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and RulesDECISION/ORDER
*1 This case raises the issue of what criteria apply for determining whether the Board of Trustees (“Trustees”) of the New York City Employee Retirement System (“ERS”), has conducted an adequate evaluation as to the causation of a NYC correction officer’s disability, where there are conflicting medical opinions as to whether the disability resulted from an injury suffered in the performance of a member’s duties or was caused by a non-servicerelated physical condition. The Trustees is the administrative agency which ultimately decides whether a correction officer is entitled to a performance of duty disability retirement benefit. Petitioner Matthew Boyd (“petitioner” or “Boyd”), a correction officer employed by the NYC Department of Corrections (“DOC”), seeks an order annulling the determination of the Trustees, dated May 15, 2016, which denied his application for disability retirement benefits (“disability benefits”) pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law (“RSSL”) §507-c.Prior to his appointment by the DOC, petitioner passed the physical and mental examination administered by the DOC, which demonstrated that he was mentally and physically fit. In 2006 and 2007, petitioner was assaulted by inmates while on the job and sustained injuries to his shoulders, back and neck. After the first incident, petitioner did not return to work until almost a
