Armer v. New York State Employee's Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armer v. New York State Employee's Retirement System

119 A.D.2d 944, 501 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55874

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 944 (Armer v. New York State Employee's Retirement System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armer v. New York State Employee's Retirement System, 119 A.D.2d 944, 501 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered August 28, 1984 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of the Comptroller denying petitioner’s request for retirement benefits under the Laws of 1983 (ch 17). [945]*945In discharging the duty of determining service allowances, the Comptroller’s construction of a statute will be upheld if it is not irrational or unreasonable (Matter of Spitz v Regan, 98 AD2d 920; Matter of Pierce v Regan, 98 AD2d 830). In this case, we find nothing irrational or unreasonable in the Comptroller’s construction of the Laws of 1983 (ch 17, § 1), which defines "eligible employee”. Accordingly, the judgment dismissing the petition should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Main, J.P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered August 28, 1984 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of the Comptroller denying petitioner’s request for retirement benefits under the Laws of 1983 (ch 17). [945]*945In discharging the duty of determining service allowances, the Comptroller’s construction of a statute will be upheld if it is not irrational or unreasonable (Matter of Spitz v Regan, 98 AD2d 920; Matter of Pierce v Regan, 98 AD2d 830). In this case, we find nothing irrational or unreasonable in the Comptroller’s construction of the Laws of 1983 (ch 17, § 1), which defines "eligible employee”. Accordingly, the judgment dismissing the petition should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Main, J.P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 944, 501 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armer-v-new-york-state-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack