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
|