Retired NY Firefighter Challenges Denial of Pension Benefits, Alleging Bias and Improper Evidence

A retired Mount Vernon firefighter has filed an Article 78 petition in New York Supreme Court seeking to overturn the City of Mount Vernon’s denial of line-of-duty disability benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a(2). Michael Figueroa, who previously served as a firefighter with the City of Mount Vernon Fire Department, alleges that the city’s December 3, 2025 final determination denying him disability benefits was legally defective because the administrative process was compromised by conflicted decision-makers and unreliable evidence. 

According to the petition, Figueroa sustained multiple injuries while performing emergency firefighting and rescue operations, including traumatic bilateral shoulder injuries. He underwent extensive treatment and surgery, and the petition states that he was ultimately awarded performance-of-duty disability retirement. On January 29, 2024, he submitted an application for § 207-a(2) benefits.

In New York, General Municipal Law § 207-a(2) benefits are the post-retirement continuation benefits available to firefighters who are permanently disabled because of a line-of-duty injury or illness and cannot perform firefighting duties, but who remain employed by the municipality in a disability status rather than separating outright.

In practical terms, § 207-a has two main parts:

• § 207-a(1): applies when a firefighter is temporarily disabled and unable to work because of a line-of-duty injury. The firefighter continues to receive full salary and medical expenses.
• § 207-a(2): applies after the firefighter is found permanently disabled or retired for disability, and governs what benefits continue thereafter.

Under § 207-a(2), the municipality may be required to continue paying:

• the difference between the firefighter’s disability retirement allowance and regular salary,
• certain medical expenses related to the duty injury,
• and sometimes other contractual benefits, depending on local practice and collective bargaining language.

The city issued an initial denial on October 15, 2024, after which Figueroa requested a hearing under the city’s § 207-a(2) procedures.  A hearing was conducted over multiple dates in 2025 before Hearing Officer Kenneth Bernstein, who the petition says was designated unilaterally by the city rather than selected jointly by the parties. Fire Commissioner Kevin B. Holt later issued the final determination adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation and denying benefits. 

A central allegation in the petition concerns Commissioner’s Holt’s prior involvement with Figueroa before becoming Fire Commissioner. Figueroa alleges that Holt had previously served as union president of IAFF Local 107, the Uniformed Firefighters Association of Mount Vernon. In that capacity, Commissioner Holt personally represented Figueroa in allegations that he was improperly working while on injury leave. The petition claims those earlier allegations involved the same issues later considered during the § 207-a proceeding—his injury status, physical limitations, work capacity, and credibility. Despite that earlier advocacy role, Holt participated in the decision-making chain and issued the final determination denying benefits. 

The petition also challenges the city’s reliance on social media evidence introduced during the administrative hearing. According to the filing, the city offered social media material to attack Figueroa’s credibility and physical incapacity, but the witness presented to authenticate and interpret that material was not qualified as an expert and lacked forensic or technical credentials. Figueroa objected, arguing that the evidence lacked proper foundation and reliability, but the hearing officer admitted it over objection and later relied on it in sustaining the denial. 

The petition notes that the city acknowledged the social media material had been developed after the initial denial and therefore was not part of the original basis for rejecting the application. It nevertheless alleges that the hearing officer expressly relied on that evidence in his report and recommendation. 

Figueroa contends that the record as a whole does not provide substantial evidence supporting the denial, that the city imposed requirements not contained in General Municipal Law § 207-a(2), and that respondents selectively credited unreliable proof while disregarding competent medical evidence. He further alleges that due process was violated because administrative due process requires “a neutral and unbiased decision-maker and a hearing supported by reliable, relevant evidence,” and because due process is violated when a decision-maker “switches roles from advocate to adjudicator in the same or a related matter.” 

The petition asks the court to annul the December 3, 2025 determination, declare that the denial was issued by conflicted and biased decision-makers, direct the award of § 207-a(2) benefits retroactive to the statutory entitlement date, and rule that remand would be futile because the Fire Commissioner adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation in full and the report itself relied on what the petition characterizes as improperly admitted non-expert social media evidence. 

Here is a copy of the complaint: