LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

IN THE MATTER OF GUIDO v NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: IN THE MATTER OF GUIDO, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0141, Retirement, Employment, Statutes, Petitioner, Trs, Pension, Service Credits, Matter, Social Security Law, Ny2d, York State, Teachers, Education Law, Legislature, Bill Jacket, Nyslers, Second System, Appellate, Publication, Accordance, Opinion, Calculation, State Parks, Contributor, Provisions, Support, Amendment, Memorandum , ContentID: 120251744

Case Documents
1 1999-10-21 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125653
6 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 6 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMPLOYMENT
LAW
STATUTES
PETITIONER
TRS
PENSION
SERVICE CREDITS
MATTER
SOCIAL SECURITY LAW
NY2D
YORK STATE
TEACHERS
EDUCATION LAW
LEGISLATURE
BILL JACKET
MEMBER
NYSLERS
SECOND SYSTEM
APPELLATE
PUBLICATION
ACCORDANCE
OPINION
CALCULATION
STATE PARKS
CONTRIBUTOR
PROVISIONS
SUPPORT
AMENDMENT
MEMORANDUM


  IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT J. GUIDO, JR., APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK STATE
  TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

    94 N.Y.2d 64 (1999).
    October 21, 1999

   3 No. 155

   (99 NY Int. 0141)
   Decided October 21, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Richard Hamburger, for appellant.
   Francis V. Dow, for respondents.

   CIPARICK, J.:

   The dispute in this case arises out of an attempt by petitioner, one
   year before his retirement, to combine prior service in the New York
   State and Local Employees" Retirement System ("NYSLERS") with 31 years
   of current service in the State Teachers" Retirement System ("TRS"),
   and thus receive greaterpension benefits for the combined period.
   Relying on Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(d) and Education
   Law § 522(2), TRS determined that petitioner could not combine the
   time of service in each system in the calculation of his retirement
   allowance because he sought to do so within three years of his
   retirement date. Since petitioner did not transfer employment within
   three years of retiring, we conclude that these statutes do not bar
   petitioner's receipt of a combined retirement allowance.

   From 1958 to 1971, petitioner was seasonally employed primarily as a
   lifeguard by the Long Island State Region of the New York State Office
   of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. For the 31 years
   leading up to January 1994, petitioner also served as a full-time
   public school teacher. In 1994, petitioner applied to NYSLERS to have
   the time accrued from the State parks employment transferred to TRS.
   NYSLERS informed petitioner that he was a member of NYSLERS as of June
   1958, but because his State parks service overlapped with his service
   as a teacher, his entire period of service in NYSLERS was not
   available for transfer. Rather, only five years and seven months of
   service credit -- corresponding to time that preceded his teaching
   position -- could be transferred.
SNIPPETS:
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • The dispute in this case arises out of an attempt by petitioner, one year before his
  • Relying on Retirement and Social Security Law § 43and Education Law § 522, TRS determined
  • Since petitioner did not transfer employment within three years of retiring, we conclude that
  • NYSLERS informed petitioner that he was a member of NYSLERS as of June 1958, but because his
  • This meant that petitioner received separate pension calculations based on his time served in
  • As an initial matter, we agree with the Appellate Division regarding our standard of review.
  • Co., 49 NY2d 451, 459).
  • %No such contributor, however, shall be entitled on retirement within three years of the date
  • These statutes, viewed in their entirety, point to the conclusion that "transfer" as used in
  • Many employees might not be willing to change jobs at the expense of reduced retirement
  • we cannot escape the conclusion that the Legislature intended "transfer" in the context of
  • For example, in amending the precursor to section 43in 1922, the Senate memorandum in support
  • According to the Joint Legislative Committee to Study the Employees" Retirement System in a
  • Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to
  •    |