Board of Education v. Treyball

New York Court of Appeals

Board of Education v. Treyball

473 N.E.2d 246, 63 N.Y.2d 980, 483 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4744

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 473 N.E.2d 246 (Board of Education v. Treyball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Education v. Treyball, 473 N.E.2d 246, 63 N.Y.2d 980, 483 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4744 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this action, plaintiff Board of Education sought to attach pension contributions that had been refunded to defendant and transferred to his sons, appellants in this court. The Board alleged that defendant, formerly a school custodian-engineer, had unlawfully retained $23,837.39 in municipal funds, and had fraudulently transferred to his sons’ moneys returned to him by the Board of Education Retirement System, to protect these funds from being subject to a judgment in favor of the Board. Supreme Court granted the Board an order attaching the returned pension contributions, then held in defendant’s sons’ bank accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The question on this appeal is whether the subject funds were immune from attachment by virtue of a provision in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Education Retirement System. Appellants rely on section 26 of those rules which provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he right of a person to * * * the return of contributions * * * shall not be [982]*982subject to * * * attachment.” A reading of this provision indicates that it was intended to protect pension contributions from attachment so long as they are held by the trustees of the retirement system; it was not intended to immunize the contributions from attachment once returned to the retiree. Indeed, the provision speaks only in terms of protecting the “right” to a return of contributions, and not the contributions once returned, nor the contributions transmitted to third parties following return. This is contrasted by the same provision as it affects “retirement allowances.” In that instance, the subject provision seeks to protect not only the “right” to retirement allowances but also a “retirement allowance itself” (see Retirement and Social Security Law, § 110).

Appellants’ other arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this action, plaintiff Board of Education sought to attach pension contributions that had been refunded to defendant and transferred to his sons, appellants in this court. The Board alleged that defendant, formerly a school custodian-engineer, had unlawfully retained $23,837.39 in municipal funds, and had fraudulently transferred to his sons’ moneys returned to him by the Board of Education Retirement System, to protect these funds from being subject to a judgment in favor of the Board. Supreme Court granted the Board an order attaching the returned pension contributions, then held in defendant’s sons’ bank accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The question on this appeal is whether the subject funds were immune from attachment by virtue of a provision in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Education Retirement System. Appellants rely on section 26 of those rules which provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he right of a person to * * * the return of contributions * * * shall not be [982]*982subject to * * * attachment.” A reading of this provision indicates that it was intended to protect pension contributions from attachment so long as they are held by the trustees of the retirement system; it was not intended to immunize the contributions from attachment once returned to the retiree. Indeed, the provision speaks only in terms of protecting the “right” to a return of contributions, and not the contributions once returned, nor the contributions transmitted to third parties following return. This is contrasted by the same provision as it affects “retirement allowances.” In that instance, the subject provision seeks to protect not only the “right” to retirement allowances but also a “retirement allowance itself” (see Retirement and Social Security Law, § 110).

Appellants’ other arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 N.E.2d 246, 63 N.Y.2d 980, 483 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-v-treyball-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack