The consequences of withdrawing from membership in a retirement system

The consequences of withdrawing from membership in a retirement system
2014 NY Slip Op 03907, Appellate Division, Third Department

An applicant [Applicant] for disability retirement benefits was employed as a highway laborer and suffered an injury in the course of his employment. Unable to return to duty, he was terminated from his employment. About a month later he submitted a withdrawal from membership application to the New York State and Local Retirement System,“apparently upon the advice of the Town's comptroller who informed him that such withdrawal would have no affect on his ability to receive retirement benefits.”

Applicant slubsequently applied for disability retirement benefits. The New York State Employees’ Retirement System , however, denied his application on the basis that he was not a member of the Retirement System on the filing date. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Applicant commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the System’s decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the System’s determination, explaining that an applicant for such disability retirement benefits must be a member of the Retirement System at the time of his or her application is filed in order to be eligible to receive disability retirement benefits. As Applicant had withdrawn from the System prior to the date he applied for disability benefits, he entitled to, and received, only the funds he had contributed to the System.*

The court rejected Applicant’s argument that the Retirement System should be estopped from denying his application for a disability retirement allowance based upon his allegation that he was instructed by Town personnel that his withdrawal would not affect his right to receive disability benefits. The Appellate Division said that “it has been established that municipal employees are not agents of the Retirement System,” citing Bruni v Regan, 133 AD2d 921, leave to appeal denied 71 NY2d 806.

The Appellate Division further noted that “estoppel may not be invoked against the State generally,” and "erroneous advice by a government employee does not constitute the type of unusual circumstance contemplated by the exception" in advancing such an estoppel argument.

Confirming the Retirement System’s decision, the court said that the Comptroller is vested with the "exclusive authority to determine entitlement to retirement benefits and the duty to correct errors and cannot be estopped  ‘to create rights to retirement benefits to which there is no entitlement.'"

* An individual who withdraws his or her membership, in contrast to vesting his or her benefits or retiring from service if so eligible, in effect forfeits the employer’s contributions. The same it true with respect to participants in the Optional Retirement Program available to certain employees of the State University, the City University, the Community Colleges the Statutory Contract Colleges at Cornell and Alfred Universities and the State Department of Education.
.

The Freedom of Information Law typically does not require an entity to create records not in existence in order to satisfy a FOIL request

The Freedom of Information Law typically does not require an entity to create records not in existence in order to satisfy a FOIL request

2014 NY Slip Op 03031, Appellate Division, First Department

An individual [Individual] submitted a FOIL request for certain information. Supreme Court dismissed his Article 78 petition and Individual appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s decision, explaining that the records sought by Individual had been destroyed in accordance with the custodian’s records retention schedule.*

Citing Public Officers Law §89[3][a], the Appellate Division said that "Nothing in [the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) shall be construed to require any entity to prepare 'any record not possessed or maintained by such entity' except for certain categories of records not at issue here."

* 8 NYCRR N 188, State Government Archives and Records Management, sets out the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education addressing the retention and destruction of State records.
.

A individual must be a “whistle blower” within the meaning of New York City’s Administrative Code to claim its protection against adverse personnel action

A individual must be a “whistleblower” within the meaning of New York City’s Administrative Code to claim its protection against adverse personnel action

2014 NY Slip Op 03921, Appellate Division, First Department

A New York City School District employee [Petitioner] retired alleging that he was subjected to disciplinary action because he was a “whistle blower.” He claimed that he lost in excess of $27,000 in stipends from a fellowship program as a result of School District’s adverse personnel actions, which actions he contended were in violation of New York City’s Administrative Code §12-113.

Supreme Court, New York County dismissed Petitioner’s Article 78 complaint  seeking to annul the determination of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District that Petitioner was not a whistleblower within the meaning of the Administrative Code and dismissed the proceeding.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling, noting however, that the matter was not moot notwithstanding Petitioner’s retirement because of his claimed loss of $27,000 or more.

However, said the court, it found that [1] Petitioner’s initial complaints had not been reported to the appropriate officials by Petitioner as set out in Administrative Code  12-113(a)(6)* and [2] the School District’s determination regarding Petitioner’s subsequent compliant did not result in adverse personnel actions as it was rational and neither arbitrary nor capricious, explaining that the filing of an inaccurate report of misconduct against an employee is not an adverse personnel action.

The Appellate Division also held that Petitioner's temporary reassignment to another position prior to his retirement resulted from earlier sustained charges of misconduct.

*  §12-113, captioned “Protection of sources of information,” provides that the relevant information is to reported to the agency head, a deputy agency head or such other person designated by the head of the agency to receive a report by an employee of the agency relating “information concerning conduct which [the employee] knows or reasonably believes to involve corruption, criminal activity, conflict of interest, gross mismanagement or abuse of authority by another city officer or employee, which concerns his or her office or employment, or by persons dealing with the city, which concerns their dealings with the city.

.

.