An individual receiving a pension benefit from a New York State public retirement system reemployed by New York State or political subdivision of the State must report such her reemployment and his or her earning derived from such reemployment to the retirement system

The individual [Respondent] in this action had served with the City Fire Department in various capacities for some twenty years. In May 2000 Respondent retired from the Department and after obtained a license to practice law in New York State, was reemployed by City Fire Department.

New York's Retirement and Social Security Law provides that retirees within the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System [NYSLPFR]who return to employment with the State of New York or a political subdivision of the State can earn up to $30,000 per year before their retirement benefits are suspended, unless a waiver is obtained. Respondent neither reported his return to public service nor the earnings he received in excess of $30,000 to NYSLPFR. Further, Respondent did not obtain a waiver of the earnings limit. This resulted in Respondent receiving approximately $95,106 in pension benefits to which he was not entitled via wire transfer from Florida to his bank account in New York.

Respondent admitted that he "returned to public service after approximately ten years of being in retirement" but when he took the job, he did not obtain the required waiver. He further stated "[w]ell, the required waiver that would allow me to continue to receive my entire pension, and I did understand that I needed that waiver. And I just, I didn't do it." He then stated that in 2014 he "contacted the retirement system, notified them that I was receiving the benefits and to make those arrangements necessary to suspend my retirement and to start paying back the benefits I had received."

Respondent was convicted of wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §1343, which is essentially similar to the New York felony of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law §155.40, a Class C felony. By virtue of his felony conviction, Respondent was automatically disbarred and ceased to be an attorney pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(a) and, among other penalties imposed, was directed to pay restitution to the NYSLPFR in the amount of $95,106.15, a fine of $50,000, and an assessment fee of $100.

With respect to Respondent's admission to the New York Bar, New York State's Judiciary Law, in pertinent part, provides for automatic disbarment in the event an attorney is convicted of a felony. Under this section, an offense committed in any other State, district or territory of the United States where it is classified as a felony is determined to be a felony when it would constitute a felony in this state. (see Judiciary Law, §90, subdivision 4, paragraph  e.) For purposes of this determination, the Court of Appeals has ruled that a felony in the other jurisdiction need not be a mirror image of the New York felony, precisely corresponding in every detail, but it must have essential similarity.

In response to the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District's motion to strike Respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselor-at-law, the Appellate Division concluded that Respondent's conviction of wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §1343 is essentially similar to the New York felony of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law §155.40, a Class C felony and granted the Committee's motion. The court noted that "[b]y virtue of his felony conviction, [Respondent] was automatically disbarred and ceased to be an attorney pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(a)."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04704.htm

Expulsion from membership of an organization created by the New York State Legislature

Following a member [Petitioner] of a veteran's organization [Organization] created by the New York State Legislature in 1868 expulsion from the Organization.  he commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement. Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent of annulling Petitioner's expulsion and ordering the Organization to reinstate him as a member. Organization reinstated Petitioner's membership but then file new charges against him, which again resulted in his expulsion from membership in the Organization.

Petitioner, contending that by expelling him a second time, the Organization is in contempt of the Supreme Court's judgment asked the Appellate Division to find the Organization in civil contempt of the Supreme Court's directive.

Citing Garcia v Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 231 AD2d 401, the Appellate Division rejected Petitioner's claim. The court explained that in order to find a party in civil contempt, it must be determined that:

 [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect;

 [2] that the party charged with contempt had notice of the order and disobeyed it; and

[3] the failure to comply with the order prejudiced the rights of a party to the litigation.

Here, however, the Appellate Division determined that although the Supreme Court's judgment mandated Petitioner's reinstatement, it did not address any future charges and nor did it hold that Petitioner could never be discharged from the Organization. In the words of the court, "[t]he sole mandate of the judgment, which was based exclusively on the first charges brought against [Petitioner], was for [the Organization] to reinstate Petitioner. As the Organization admittedly complied with that mandate, there was no violation such that a finding of contempt would be appropriate.

The Appellate Division also noted Petitioner's argument that he is entitled to [1] a determination as to his allegations of fraudulent conduct by other members of the Organization and [2] whether Organization followed proper procedure in expelling him a second time.

However, ruled the Appellate Division, as Petitioner's initial petition did not seek such determinations in his initial petition and only sought a determination involving the first set of charges brought against him by Organization, the Supreme Court's determination concerning that matter was fully disposed of by the court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04101.htm

Determining the timeliness of an appeal of an administrative decision to an administrative appellate body within the agency

The critical lesson set out in this decision by the Appellate Division is that a request to reconsider a "final administrative determination" does not toll the running of the statute of limitations for initiating litigation challenging the decision.

The Appellate Division said it agreed with the Supreme Court's determination that the commencement of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 was untimely as the retiree [Petitioner] did not file the action within four months of receiving the Retirement Systems determination informing her of the effective date of her retirement. Although Petitioner's subsequent asked the Retirement System to reconsider its determination regarding the effective date of her retirement, requests for "administrative reconsideration" do not extend or toll the running of the statute of limitations.

A related question concerns the timeliness of filing an administrative appeal of an agency's determination concerning a matter when a statute authorizes an individual to file an appeal from an administrative determination by mail. Is the controlling date the date the appeal was mailed to the agency's administrative appellate body or the date on which the appeal was received by the administrative appellate body?

In McLaughlin v Saga Corp., NYS Appellate Division, 242 A.D.2d 393, the Appellate Division overturned the traditional view was that the notice of appeal is untimely if it physically received by the appellate body after the Statute of Limitations had passed.

Rather, decided the Appellate Division, if the party is able to submit "proof of mailing within the limitations period," the application or appeal is timely.

The case arose under a provision of the Workers' Compensation Law that allowed a party to "serve" its appeal on the WCB by mailing it to the Board within 30 days. However, the Board took the position that unless it received the application for review on or before the last day of the 30-day limitations period, it was untimely. In Saga's case, although mailed within the 30-day period allowed for filing the application, WCB did not physically receive it until eight days after the statute of limitations had expired.

The rationale underlying the revised ruling is clear. If a person has a statutory right to make a decision, which may be then filed by mail, this period would necessarily be shortened if the appellate body could insist that it physically receive the mailed notice no later than the last day of the period of limitation.

In effect the Appellate Division concluded that the method of service of a notice of appeal, mail or personal delivery, should not determine the time period available to the party to decided whether or not to appeal an administrative ruling.

However, it appears that such a final action must be reduced to writing in order to start the running of the statute of limitations. In McCoy v San Francisco, City and County, 14 F.3d 28 , theU.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, ruled that a public employee's civil rights suit against his employer accrued when the appointing authority issued a  written statement suspending him from work, rather than from the date of a hearing held earlier at which time McCoy was orally told he was suspended from his position.

The Retirement System decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04177.htm

The McLaughlin v Saga decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-mclaughlin-v-saga-corporation-1

The McCoy v San Francisco decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19944214f3d28130