A retirement system member's timely designation of the party or entity to receive the member's death benefit is critical

In an Article 78 action involving the payment of a death benefit by the New York City Employees' Retirement System [NYCERS] involving competing claimants, one of Plaintiffs seeking the death benefit appealed a Supreme Court's decision granting NYCERS' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Plaintiff's claimed decedent [Decedent] had been employed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and was a member of NYCERS. In 1980, Decedent submitted a designation of beneficiary form to NYCERS designating his daughter and his mother as his beneficiaries for an ordinary death benefit [ODB] which was to be paid to the designated beneficiaries if the NYCERS member died while in service.

In 2008, Decedent submitted a designation of beneficiary form designating Plaintiff, Decedent's spouse, as his beneficiary for the ODB. Decedent also checked a box on the 2008 designation form stating that he was nominating his estate as his  beneficiary, which was accompanied by an acknowledgment that a NYCERS member could not designate both an individual and the member's estate as beneficiaries. 

By letters sent in August 2008 through October 2008, NYCERS notified Decedent that the 2008 designation was invalid because he had designated both the Plaintiff and his estate as beneficiaries and that the Decedent needed to complete a new designation of beneficiary form. Decedent failed to complete and file a new designation of beneficiary form with NYCERS.

In early 2017, Decedent submitted an application for service retirement to NYCERS at which time Decedent had the option of designating a beneficiary or beneficiaries to receive a postretirement death benefit [PRDB] upon his death, or in the absence of such an election, NYCERS would issue the PRDB to the beneficiary or beneficiaries who were designated to receive the ODB. Decedent did not designate a beneficiary to receive the PRDB.

Decedent died in May, 2017 and NYCERS then informed the Decedent's daughter and his mother that they were entitled to the PRDB by virtue of their status as ODB  beneficiaries. 

In March 2018 Plaintiff inquired as to her entitlement to the PRDB. NYCERS responded, notifying Plaintiff that although the Decedent had named her as a beneficiary, he had also designated his estate as a beneficiary, and, therefore, the designation was "invalid" and she was not entitled to the PRDB.

In June 2019, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against NYCERS seeking a judgment declaring that NYCERS is obligated to pay the PRDB to the Plaintiff. NYCERS moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, contending that Plaintiff could have commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge NYCERS's determination that the 2008 designation was invalid and the Plaintiff was not entitled to the PRDB and that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applied. However, as the action was not commenced within the four-month period, Supreme Court granted NYCERS's motion, determining that the action was time-barred and Plaintiff appealed Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, explaining that:

1. On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired; and

2. "The burden then shift[s] to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely'".

In addition, the Appellate Division noted that "Where a declaratory judgment [or other] action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which a specific limitation period is provided, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period" and thus where as is here the situation, "a proceeding could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies. The Appellate Division observed that as "Plaintiff correctly concedes," the four-month statute of limitations applicable to a proceeding commenced pursuant to CPLR Article 78 applies, and Plaintiff could have commenced such a proceeding to challenge NYCERS's determination that the 2008 designation was invalid".

In the words of the Appellate Division:

a. "A challenge to an administrative determination must be commenced within four months of the time the determination is 'final and binding upon the petitioner;

b. "A determination is final and binding within the meaning of CPLR 217 when the decisionmaker arrives at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; and

c. The statute of limitations "does not begin to run until the petitioner receives notice of the [final] determination".

Following further discussion concerning the running of the several statutes of limitations involved in this situation, the Appellate Division concluded that "Supreme Court properly granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss [Plaintiff's] complaint as time-barred".

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

The New York State Bar Association's Local and State Government Law Section's 2026 Program

 

Join/Renew

Thursday, January 15, 2026 New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 6th Ave, New York, NY Register Now Book Hotel We’re excited to share the latest updates for the Local and State Government Law Section's Annual Meeting programming. New details have been added to help you make the most of your experience. Be sure to register today and secure your place at this year’s event.  Section events include:  Local and State Government Law Section MCLE Program Thursday, January 15 | 8:45 a.m. - 4:15 p.m. Join us for this year’s annual meeting which will cover hot topics and the latest developments in municipal law including, disadvantaged communities under the CLCPA, cybersecurity, labor, land use and zoning, home rule, and ethics. Special Events Presidential Summit MCLE Program Wednesday, January 14 | 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Constance Baker Motley Symposium Wednesday, January 14 | 4:00 p.m. -  6:00 p.m. President's Reception: A Celebration of the 150th Anniversary Wednesday, January 14 | 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. This email was sent to NYPPL by the New York State Bar Association One Elk Street Albany, NY, 12207, USA and has been posted by NYPPL Pro Bono.  Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

Correction officer found guilty of disciplinary charges alleging unprofessional and threatening misconduct terminated from service

A County Department of Probation probation officer [Petitioner] was served three disciplinary charges alleging behavior that was "unbecoming an employee and/or constituted violations of the employer's workplace violence policy and anti-harassment policy". 

Following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the Hearing Officer issued a report in which he found Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charges and recommended Petitioner's dismissal from service. The Director of the County Department of Probation [Director] adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and terminated Petitioner's employment.

Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the Director's determination, which action was then transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804[g]. The Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision, observing that it was  supported by substantial evidence". 

The disciplinary charges against Petitioner essentially relate to three incidents, and extensive testimony and documentary evidence was presented at the hearing addressing each of them. 

The first incident involved a heated interview between Petitioner and one of the probationers he was supervising. Numerous witnesses testified that Petitioner commenced "yelling" at the probationer, accusing him of lying, barring him from leaving despite having no basis for doing so and eventually demanding to know whether he wanted "to take [it] outside". The proof submitted reflected that the interview became so contentious that others intervened to de-escalate the situation and separate the two individuals. The probationer was subsequently transferred to the caseload of another probation officer.

The second incident involved another probation officer who alleged Petitioner's behavior to be threatening and she filed a formal complaint against Petitioner with the agency's human resources office.

The testimony following a third incident, which involved Petitioner and a different probation officer, reported that the probation officer was "uncomfortable around [Petitioner] due to his prior behavior and decided to wait in her vehicle until he went inside'. The probation officer testified that when she finally got out of her car, "Petitioner also got out of his vehicle and waited for her by the stairs to the employee entrance" and another probation officer "was worried enough about what might happen next that she began recording audio on her phone, and that recording was entered into evidence at the hearing". 

The probation officer testified that she found the "incident so disturbing that she immediately reported it to her supervisor" and, like the probation officer who had been involved in the earlier incident, filed a formal complaint about it.

The Appellate Division opined that "Without belaboring the point further, this proof of [Petitioner's] unprofessional and threatening conduct" during these several incidents reflected that Petitioner "had engaged in conduct unbecoming a County employee in numerous respects".

Although Petitioner presented testimony that challenged aspects of the other witnesses' accounts and generally attempted to put his behavior in a more favorable light, the Hearing Officer indicated that he found Petitioner to be "wholly incredible in his testimony" and "credited the proof that [Petitioner] had engaged in extensive misconduct. 

The Appellate Division's decision concluded by noting Petitioner's "demonstrated pattern of unprofessional and aggressive behavior, for which he failed to accept any responsibility or indicate a willingness to modify in the future", and, citing Matter of McLean v City of Albany, 13 AD3d 851, and other Appellate Division decisions, held that the penalty of termination "was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness.".

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

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending November 14, 2025

Data Solutions for Faster Aid Delivery Help eligible individuals gain quick, reliable access to vital services like food and healthcare. Learn More 

Empower Individuals and Families to Achieve Stability and Self-Sufficiency Use Data-Driven Insights to Provide Faster and Easier Access to Vital Social Services. Learn More

ROI You Can Prove: Making the Case for Modern Identity Systems Modern identity systems are critical to secure, digital-first government—but funding them takes a clear business case. This guide walks through a realistic five-year cost-benefit analysis for digital identity systems in the public sector, showing how agencies can forecast ROI, reduce fraud, and accelerate digital transformation. DOWNLOAD

Building Whole-of-State Cybersecurity: A Maturity Model for Shared Resilience This new paper outlines how states can evolve from foundational security practices to advanced, optimized operations — leveraging automation, AI, and shared intelligence to reduce risk and improve response times. DOWNLOAD 

No Wrong Door: Modernizing Digital Identity for Seamless Government Access This paper outlines how a modern IAM strategy — built on single sign-on, multifactor authentication and open standards — reduces complexity, boosts cybersecurity and delivers a better experience for both residents and staff. DOWNLOAD

See How Coordination Brings Connectivity Back After Natural Disasters  Restoring connectivity is essential to recovery. A new docufilm follows broadband crews working alongside utilities and government partners to bring communications back. Watch the Film

No Wrong Door: Modernizing Digital Identity for Seamless Government Access This paper outlines how a modern IAM strategy — built on single sign-on, multifactor authentication and open standards — reduces complexity, boosts cybersecurity and delivers a better experience for both residents and staff. DOWNLOAD

Q&A: Beyond Silos: Optimizing Whole-of-State Defense This Q&A explores how a whole-of-state approach can unify security efforts across departments, while optimizing limited resources.  DOWNLOAD

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits on the Internet

On August 13, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following audits on the Internet.

Click the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Serven Volunteer Fire Company – Board Oversight (Seneca County) The board did not ensure financial activities were properly recorded and reported and resources were adequately safeguarded, which increased the risk that errors or irregularities could occur and remain undetected and uncorrected. The board did not ensure that the bylaws were adequate or enforce their limited financial provisions, establish supplemental financial policies or procedures, conduct a thorough audit of bills or conduct an annual audit of the treasurer’s books and records. The treasurer did not solely receive and deposit all money as required and allowed a member to handle hall rental revenue.

Border City Fire District – Board Oversight (Seneca County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. As a result, the former district fire department chief, who was also a director of the Border City Hose Company, entered into an unauthorized contract with a private corporation and kept an unauthorized bank account into which he inappropriately deposited and withdrew district money. The board did not ensure all goods and services were procured in compliance with state law, district policies or in the best interest of taxpayers. The board did not oversee the chief or ensure the treasurer received, accounted for and dispersed all district money.

Border City Hose Company – Financial Oversight (Seneca County)  Company officers did not provide oversight of company financial operations by performing even the limited oversight responsibilities outlined in the company’s bylaws. Certain officers hindered the treasurer’s ability to perform his fiscal responsibilities by designating themselves as recipients and custodians of most company money. As a result, company money was not always properly accounted for, and a director, who was also the Border City Fire District Fire Department chief, inappropriately used company funds for his personal benefit.

Henderson Fire District – Financial Activities (Jefferson County) The board did not adequately monitor financial activities or ensure the treasurer maintained appropriate records and reports. Auditors determined the treasurer did not prepare accurate and timely bank reconciliations for the general fund checking account and did not reconcile the three interest-bearing savings and money market accounts. The treasurer did not provide the board with a detailed listing of all funds received and disbursed during the month or balance sheet reports. The treasurer also did not file annual financial reports with the State Comptroller’s Office for 2019 through 2024.

Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District – Claims Auditing (Steuben County) The claims auditor did not properly audit all claims prior to payment. Of the 2,943 claims totaling $23.7 million, auditors reviewed 202 claims totaling $1.4 million and determined that 105 claims totaling approximately $804,000 should not have been approved by the claims auditor for payment. While auditors were able to determine that each of the 202 claims was for a proper district purpose, the board had no assurance that claims approved by the claims auditor complied with its written policies and that each purchase was for a proper district purpose.

###