ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

December 16, 2024

Courts sustain retirement system's determination placing member transferring into its system in its Tier 6

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul the determination of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA] and the MTA Defined Benefit Pension Plan [MTADBPP] placing Plaintiff in Tier 6 in the MTACBPP. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, without costs.

MTA had denied Plaintiff, an officer with the MTA Police Department, pension credit for his prior nonuniformed service as a traffic enforcement agent with the New York City Police Department [NYPD]. 

Citing Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, the Appellate Division found that MTA's decision had a "rational basis", noting that letters from the New York City Police Pension Fund [NYCPPF] show that Plaintiff became a member of the NYCPPF when he joined the NYPD as a uniformed police officer on January 9, 2013 and the MTADBPP plan classifies members who joined MTADBPP on or after April 1, 2012, as Tier 6. 

The Appellate Division opined that the MTADBPP reasonably interpreted the provision in issue to include Plaintiff's service as a uniformed officer but exclude his nonuniformed service as a traffic enforcement agent with NYPD. 

Noting that NYPD had credited Plaintiff's nonuniformed service and granted him Tier 2 status in the NYCPPF, the Appellate Division observed that Plaintiff cited no statute or provision of the MTADBPP "requiring MTA to do the same".

Further, explained the court, Retirement and Social Security Law §645 does not apply in this instance because MYADBPP is not among the enumerated "public retirement system[s]" between which the statute authorizes the cross-honoring of a member's membership starting date.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com