New York Court of Appeals, 2013

Ward v. City of Long Beach

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 14, 2013

20 N.Y.3d 1042; 985 N.E.2d 898

Cases that cite this one

54 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Matter of Ventresca-Cohen v. DiFiore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Newman v. City of Tonawanda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Ferrelli v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matos v. Discovery Communications, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
Matter of Froehlich v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Rye Ridge Park, LLC v. Village of Rye Brook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v. Division of Hous. & Community Renewal (N.Y. 2025)
Colella v. Starpoint Central School District (District Court, W.D. New York 2025)
Matter of Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Dept. (N.Y. 2025)
Matter of Mantilla v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. (N.Y. 2025)
Matter of Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. v. Dominguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
1930 Homecrest Realty LLC v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Pastrana v. New York City Fire Pension Fund (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Martin v. New York State Unified Ct. Sys. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Diaz v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Kinach v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Hendrick v. Sewell (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Hart v. Shea (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Sampson-Thornhill v. Caban (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Hines v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Abraham v. Tisch (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Pastrana v. New York City Fire Pension Fund (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Mark Intl. LLC v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Matter of Smith v. City of Norwich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Hammonds v. New York State Educ. Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner, a lieutenant in the City of Long Beach Fire Department, claimed to have suffered a work-related injury in October 2003. He filed for disability retirement with the State pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c. The State Comptroller granted that application and shortly thereafter petitioner retired from active duty. In May 2008, petitioner sought supplemental disability pension benefits from the City pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a. The Fire Commissioner denied the request, without explanation, and that determination was later upheld on appeal by the City’s Corporation Counsel. Petitioner brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court annulled respondent’s determination and directed respondent to pay petitioner the subject benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed.

In reviewing the City’s determination—one that was made without a hearing—the issue is whether the action taken had a “rational basis” and was not “arbitrary and capricious” (see e.g. Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]). If the determination has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable (id.).

The City’s denial was based on statements made by petitioner’s estranged wife in the midst of a divorce and Corporation *1044Counsel’s personal observations of petitioner. Petitioner was given no notice of the allegations nor an opportunity to respond to them, despite the substantial contrary record evidence, including medical findings, that led to the approval of petitioner’s application for disability benefits from the State. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Appellate Division that the City’s justification for its denial lacks the requisite rational basis and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur; Judge Rivera taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.