IN THE MATTER OF EDWIN C. WALDECK, APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL., RESPONDENTS; IN THE MATTER OF ALFONSE T. BARBARO,
APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
81 N.Y.2d 0804, 611 N.E.2d 275, 595 N.Y.S.2d 374 (1993).
February 16, 1993
1 No. 2 (1993 N.Y. Int. 20)
1 No. 3 (1993 N.Y. Int. 20)
Decided February 16, 1993.
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Allen Cohen, for Appellant.
Elaine Rothenberg, for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed,
with costs.
Petitioners, uniformed sanitation workers, each brought an article 78
proceeding, in effect, challenging the effective dates of their
respective discharges from employment. They argued that their firings
were ineffective under §13-173.1 of the Administrative Code of the
City of New York, since they had not received notice of their
respective firings prior to their intended dates of voluntary
resignation, at which time their retirement allowances would have
vested. The Appellate Division, First Department, (1) reversed the
orders and judgments of the Supreme Court, New York County, granting
the petitions, and (2) dismissed the petitions. We granted leave to
appeal and now affirm the orders of the Appellate Division.
Section 13-173.1 of the Administrative Code contains no requirement
that employees receive notice of their discharge from employment, nor
does any other statutory source. The rationale of the Supreme Court in
granting the petitions is that notice must be given to the discharged
employee in the manner required to commence the running of the time
limit for an appeal under Civil Service Law § 76. We agree with the
Appellate Division that that argument is unpersuasive. By its terms,
Civil Service Law § 76 deals exclusively with appeals (see, Simpson v
Wolanshy, 38 NY2d 391, 393) and has no relevance to the effective date
of termination from employment under § 13-173.1 of the Administrative
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF EDWIN C. WALDECK, APPELLANT, v.
NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
No. 2 (1993 N.Y. Int.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed, with costs.
They argued that their firings were ineffective under §13-173.1 of the Administrative Code of
The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the orders and judgments of the Supreme
We granted leave to appeal and now affirm the orders of the Appellate Division.
Section 13-173.1 of the Administrative Code contains no requirement that employees receive
The rationale of the Supreme Court in granting the petitions is that notice must be given to
By its terms, Civil Service Law § 76 deals exclusively with appeals (see, Simpson v Wolanshy,
the date of effectiveness of a determination is distinct from the date on which a
The Legislature requires notice in a multitude of other statutory contexts.
We decide only that there is no legislative requirement for notice affecting the effective
Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
|
