Retiree’s application to change the retirement optionselected filed more than thirty days after her effective date of retirementrejected as untimelyFeuer v State of New York, 2012 NY Slip Op 09129, AppellateDivision, Third Department
Prior to retiring in June 2009, a teacher, a Tier 4member of the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS], met herfinancial advisor and a TRS representative for a preretirementconsultation. The teacher then submitted her application for retirement,selecting the option entitled "Largest Lump Sum," which provided the"largest possible lump sum payment to a beneficiary" followingthe member's death (emphasis in the decision), and designated her niece and nephew as herbeneficiaries.
The retirement application the teacher completed alsodetailed another option available to a retiree entitled the "Maximum"option. It described this option as follows: "MAXIMUM — Do notdesignate a beneficiary if you select this option. This election will provideyou with the largest possible annual benefit. All payments will cease at yourdeath."
In addition, the application stated that, in the event an applicant wished to change options, notice of such a change had to be receivedby the Retirement System "within 30 days after [the] effective date ofretirement" — in this retiree's case, no later than July 30, 2009.
After submitting her application, the retiree received aletter from the Retirement System dated March 23, 2010, summarizing herretirement benefits and established her monthly pension payment. More then 30days after the effective date of her retirement, however, the now retiredteacher notified the Retirement System that she wanted to change her retirementoption selection from "the Largest Lump Sum" option to the "Maximum" option.
The Retirement System denied her request and the retiree fileda petition with the Court of Claims seeking permission to file a latenotice of claim.*
The Court of Claims denied her request because the retiree,by her own admission, did not notify the Retirement System that she wanted tochange her retirement option within 30 days of the effective date of herretirement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ ruling,explaining that the Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction that hasno capacity "to grant strictly equitable relief, [although it] may grantincidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover moneydamages in appropriation, contract or tort cases."
Although the relief that the retiree seeks is couched inmoney damages,** the Appellate Divisioncharacterized her application as requiring the review of an administrative agency's determination. In thatregard, the Appellate Division noted that the money damages that the retireesought were calculated by using as a base figure what she would have received asher pension benefit had she initially selected the "Maximum" option.
The bottom line: The Appellate Division ruled that as the retiree, in essence sought judicial review and reversal of an administrativedetermination made by the Retirement System, the Court of Claims lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction and it properly denied the retiree's motion for leave tofile a late notice of claim.
* The retiree also sued TRS’representative in Supreme Court, contending that the representative wasnegligent regarding the her retirement options. Supreme Court dismissed thisaction as it sought money damages from a state employee in connection with theperformance of her duties and, as such, could only be commenced in the Court ofClaims.
** The Appellate Division said that the reliefthat the retiree sought would result in her receiving “windfall, because notonly would she receive the monthly pension benefit under the Maximum option,but she still would have a lump sum available to her beneficiaries upon herdemise.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_09129.htm
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder