The retiree [Decedent], a member of the New York City Employees' System, [CERS] retired in March 2016. On November 21, 2016, Decedent submitted a notarized retirement option election form to CRES in which she designated the Plaintiff [Beneficiary 1] in this action as the beneficiary of the death benefit payable by CRES to her designated beneficiary.
On November 25, 2016, Decedent submitted a second form to CERS designating two different individuals, Beneficiary 2 and Beneficiary 3, to receive her CERS death benefit.
Decedent died on December 16, 2016.
On March 1, 2017, Beneficiary 1 appeared in person at the CERS customer service center and filled out a request for information form seeking the identity of Decedent's death benefit beneficiary. NYCERS mailed a letter dated March 22, 2017 to Beneficiary 1 stating that Beneficiary 2 and Beneficiary 3 were the beneficiaries of Decedent's death benefit. On March 27, 2017 Beneficiary 1 returned to the CERS customer service center and submitted a letter to CERS demanding that CERS halt the distribution of any monies attributed to Decedent's death benefit to Beneficiary 2 and, or, Beneficiary 3.
CERS subsequently sent a letter dated March 30, 2017 to Beneficiary 1 stating that the death benefit would be paid to Beneficiary 2 and Beneficiary 3 because the last notarized retirement option election form that CERS received from the Decedent designated them as the beneficiaries of Decedent's death benefit.*
On November 25, 2016, Decedent submitted a second form to CERS designating two different individuals, Beneficiary 2 and Beneficiary 3, to receive her CERS death benefit.
Decedent died on December 16, 2016.
On March 1, 2017, Beneficiary 1 appeared in person at the CERS customer service center and filled out a request for information form seeking the identity of Decedent's death benefit beneficiary. NYCERS mailed a letter dated March 22, 2017 to Beneficiary 1 stating that Beneficiary 2 and Beneficiary 3 were the beneficiaries of Decedent's death benefit. On March 27, 2017 Beneficiary 1 returned to the CERS customer service center and submitted a letter to CERS demanding that CERS halt the distribution of any monies attributed to Decedent's death benefit to Beneficiary 2 and, or, Beneficiary 3.
CERS subsequently sent a letter dated March 30, 2017 to Beneficiary 1 stating that the death benefit would be paid to Beneficiary 2 and Beneficiary 3 because the last notarized retirement option election form that CERS received from the Decedent designated them as the beneficiaries of Decedent's death benefit.*
In December 2017, Beneficiary 1 initiated an action pursuant to CPLR Article 78, "in the nature of mandamus"** seeking a court order compelling CERS to pay the Decedent's death benefit to her. CERS and Beneficiary 2 separately moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred.
Supreme Court, in effect granting the motions submitted by CERS and Beneficiary 2, denied Beneficiary's 1 petition, and dismissed the proceeding, explaining that the CERS letter dated March 30, 2017, was a final determination which was mailed to the address provided by Beneficiary 1 and, accordingly, her CPLR petition was untimely under the controlling four-month statute of limitations which began to run "after the [CERS] refusal" to comply with Beneficiary's 1 request that CERS discontinue distribution of any monies to Beneficiary 2 and, or, Beneficiary 3. Beneficiary 1 appealed the Supreme Court's ruling to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division sustained the lower court decision, observing that CERS' letter dated March 30, 2017, was an unequivocal refusal to comply with Beneficiary 1's demand, which constituted a final determination by CERS for the purposed of the determining the date on which the statute of limitations commenced to run. As that letter was mailed to the address indicated on the New York State Identification Card that Beneficiary 1 provided as proof of her identification at the time of her demand, which, said the court, CERS had every right to rely upon as Beneficiary 1's correct address. Further, CERS did not receive any notice that the letter dated March 30, 2017 it mailed to Beneficiary 1 was returned to it as undeliverable.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division stated that it agreed with the Supreme Court's determination granting the separate motions of CERS and B2 to dismiss Beneficiary 1's CPLR Article 78 petition as untimely and dismissing the proceeding.
* In disputes such as these the Retirement System typically takes the position that it is merely a "stakeholder" and "awaits the court's order instructing payment" in the event its decision is challenged.
** The writ of mandamus is one of number of the ancient “common law” writs and is granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform." Other writs include the writ of prohibition – a writ issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction;" the writ of injunction - a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority]. The Civil Practice Law and Rules sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient writs.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: