IN THE MATTER OF McTIGUE v. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, he was not entitled to a due process hearing since his General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were neither revoked nor terminated ( see Matter of Cole-Hatchard v. Sherwood, 309 AD2d 933; cf. Matter of Gamma v. Bloom, 274 AD2d 14). Furthermore, there was a rational basis for the respondents' determination to deny the petitioner's request for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits for the two days in question, November 3, 2003, and November 4, 2003. Therefore, the determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Cole-Hatchard v. Sherwood, supra; Matter of Miele v. Town of Clarkstown, 299 AD2d 362).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.