Judge Rules in Favor of Disabled Firemen

A Nassau County Supreme Court judge ruled on Monday that the city owes three former Long Beach firefighters roughly $400,000 in disability payments for permanent injuries they suffered on the job.

Former firefighters Douglas Eidt, Thomas Gubelli and William Polin filed an Article 78 proceeding against the city to force Long Beach to pay them the proper amount in supplemental disability, and Judge John Galasso sided with them in his decision.

“I think it was 100 percent a proper and correct ruling,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Christina Panzarella. “I’m very grateful that the judge understood the law and applied it properly. My clients have been fighting for this for a long time. We’re very happy.”

City Manager Charles Theofan said the city plans to appeal Judge Galasso’s decision.

“We respectfully disagree with the judge,” Theofan said.

Panzarella said the city has been violating state law by refusing to pick up the appropriate portion of the firefighters’ regular salaries that was not covered by disability retirement pay even though they were deemed permanently disabled. She added that the city has owed the former firefighters supplemental disability payments since 2006.

Both Eidt and Polin, who are Long Beach residents, were hired as paid firefighters in 1969 and were injured in separate incidents in 1989. Eidt suffered injuries during a fire when his oxygen tank ran out of air, damaging his lungs, and Polin injured his back and shoulder while testing a pump on a fire truck, Panzarella said.

Gubelli, who has since moved to Baldwin, was hired in 1986 and suffered a knee injury in 2000 while responding to a car accident.

Eidt and Gubelli are each entitled to about $155,000 in disability pay from the city and Polin is owed about $90,000, Panzarella said.

The three firefighters, who are friends, first brought the lawsuit against the city in 2007, but Nassau County Supreme Court Judge Antonio Brandveen dismissed it the following year, ruling that the statute of limitations on the Article 78 had expired.

They appealed Brandveen’s decision to the Appellate Division of the Second Judicial Department, arguing that they had filed the court action within the allotted four-month timeframe after being informed by the city that their requests for payment were denied.

They won the appeal on May 12, 2009 and Brandveen’s ruling was thrown out. “The appellate division agreed that the claims were timely and the case was reinstated,” said Panzarella.

Judge Galasso ruled in their favor after two days of trial testimony.

“I believe that this is the first time that anybody has sued the city for this,” said Panzarella. “My clients were the first ones to pick up on the fact that the city was not paying them appropriately.

“Judge [Galasso] corrected an error that the city had made,” she added.

The city’s position has been that it was paying the proper salary amount to the trio.

“Our position is that they weren’t and we were able to prove that at trial,” Panzarella said.

Theofan said, “The case has a long and tortured history and we are confident that at the end of the day, the city will prevail. Nothing gets paid until our appeal is decided.

“Our policy is that we pay them what the law requires, and we’ve had a disagreement about that,” he added. “The case really hinges on the definition of base pay and on that we don’t seem to agree.”