In 1976 the City of Mount Vernon adopted the following resolution:
"RESOLVED, that the City of Mount Vernon hereby elects to contribute one
hundred per cent (100%) of the cost of individual and dependent health
insurance coverage as the city's rate of contribution in the New York State
Government Employees' Health Insurance Program [NYSHIP] for those employees not
members of a negotiating unit who shall retire on and after January 1,
1977."
In 1979, the then-Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon
allegedly told the Plaintiff in this action that if she voluntarily left her position
at that time she would be eligible to receive full retirement medical benefits
when she reached the age of 55, even though she would not continue working for
the City.* Plaintiff agreed to the Mayor's proposal and resigned from her
position with the City in December 1980. Thereafter Plaintiff did not receive health insurance benefits pursuant to NYSHIP.
Plaintiff was unsuccessful in her subsequently efforts to obtain NYSHIP health insurance
coverage upon her retirement at age of 55 as represented by the City's former
mayor. Ultimately Supreme Court's dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuits seeking to
recover damages from the City for "breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement, and fraudulent misrepresentation". Plaintiff appealed the
Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, holding
that "To the extent that the [Plaintiff] otherwise submitted evidence
tending to substantiate her allegation that City officials made verbal and
written representations that she would be eligible for retirement health
benefits despite her undisputed lapse in coverage, such evidence was
insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, since at best it showed that the
City's officials made promises that the City lacked the authority to fulfill."
* See 4 NYCRR 73.2, in general, and 4 NYCRR 73.29(a)(3), in
particular, with respect to "Eligibility" for participation in NYSHIP
and 4 NYCRR 73.2(e), "Disqualification", with respect to such participation.
The Appellate Division's decision is set out below.
Johnson v City
of Mount Vernon
|
2023 NY Slip Op
01502
|
Decided on March 22, 2023
|
Appellate Division,
Second Department
|
Published by New York State Law Reporting
Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
|
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the Official Reports.
|
Decided on March 22, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate
Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
2019-13093
(Index No. 51304/15)
Amelia Politi Johnson, appellant,
v
City of Mount
Vernon,
respondent.
Nancy A. Luongo, Harrison, NY,
for appellant.
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, NY
(Paul J. Sweeney, Steven L. Foss, and Devin M. Dilts of counsel), for
respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the
plaintiff appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester
County (Sam D. Walker, J.), dated October 11, 2019. The amended order,
insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the defendant's motion
which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages
for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent
misrepresentation.
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with
costs.
In June 1969, the plaintiff began working as a nonunion employee for the
defendant, City of Mount Vernon.
After approximately 10 years, the then-Mayor of the City allegedly told the
plaintiff that if she voluntarily left her position at that time she would be
eligible to receive full retirement medical benefits when she reached the age
of 55, even though she would not continue working for the City. City officials
allegedly represented to the plaintiff that she would be eligible for such
benefits pursuant to a resolution the City had adopted on November 24, 1976
(hereinafter the 1976 resolution). The 1976 resolution provided:
"RESOLVED, that the City of Mount Vernon hereby elects to contribute one
hundred per cent (100%) of the cost of individual and dependent health
insurance coverage as the city's rate of contribution in the New York State
Government Employees' Health Insurance Program for those employees not members
of a negotiating unit who shall retire on and after January 1, 1977." The
plaintiff agreed to the Mayor's proposal and resigned from her position with
the City in December 1980. The plaintiff did not receive medical benefits under
the New York State Health Insurance Program (hereinafter NYSHIP) directly or as
a dependent at any time after ending her employment with the City.
Upon reaching the age of 55, the plaintiff filed an application for
retirement benefits on or about August
15, 2005. However, by letter dated December 11, 2014, the City informed the plaintiff that
it had determined that she was not eligible to enroll in NYSHIP as a retiree.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the City and amended the
complaint to assert causes of action, among other things, to recover damages
for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent
misrepresentation, alleging in essence that the City breached its promise to
provide her with postretirement health insurance coverage. The City moved,
inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement, and fraudulent misrepresentation causes of action. In an amended
order dated October 11, 2019,
the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the motion.
The plaintiff appeals.
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the City's motion which
were for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract causes of action.
The breach of contract causes of action are premised upon the plaintiff's
assertion that the 1976 resolution entitled her to retirement health benefits,
based on the text of the 1976 resolution and the representations of City
officials as to the effect of the 1976 resolution. Resolving the issue of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to retirement health benefits "requires
examination of the relevant . . . plan documents" (Matter of Parrino v Albertson Water Dist., 118 AD3d 802,
802; see Matter of Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 144, 147). The
plain language of those documents, as well as the applicable statutes and
regulations, provide for postemployment health insurance benefits only for
vested employees who, upon termination of their employment with a participating
agency, continue coverage under NYSHIP as an enrollee or a dependent of an
enrollee while in vested status with no lapse in NYSHIP coverage (see
Retirement and Social Security Law § 2[18]; Civil Service Law § 163[3]; 4 NYCRR
73.1[e]; 73.2[a][3][iv]). The City established, prima facie, that the plaintiff
experienced a lapse in coverage and was therefore not eligible for retirement
health benefits.
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The
plain language of the 1976 resolution does not affect the plaintiff's
eligibility for retirement health benefits in the event of a lapse in coverage.
To the extent that the plaintiff otherwise submitted evidence tending to
substantiate her allegation that City officials made verbal and written
representations that she would be eligible for retirement health benefits
despite her undisputed lapse in coverage, such evidence was insufficient to
raise a triable issue of fact, since at best it showed that the City's
officials made promises that the City lacked the authority to fulfill (see
Matter of Parrino v Albertson Water Dist., 118 AD3d at 803; Mans Constr. Oversite, Ltd. v City of Peekskill, 114
AD3d 911, 911; International Merchants v Village of Old Field, 203
AD2d 247, 248). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's further contention, the
doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable (see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City
of New York, 71 NY2d
274, 282; International Merchants v Village
of Old Field, 203 AD2d
at 248).
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the City's motion
which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging
fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. The City established,
prima facie, that the alleged untrue representations underlying those causes of
action are the same as those underlying the breach of contract causes of action
(see Stangel v Zhi Dan Chen, 74 AD3d 1050, 1052). In
opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either not properly before this
Court or without merit.
BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, CHAMBERS and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court