Campo v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Campo v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

223 A.D.2d 466, 637 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 466 (Campo v. New York City Employees' 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

Campo v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 223 A.D.2d 466, 637 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 5, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment and to add herself as a party plaintiff as executor of her husband’s estate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the IAS Court incorrectly determined that plaintiff’s action was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings (see, Koerner v State of New York, 62 NY2d 442, 446-447), it properly concluded that, on the merits, defendant’s practice of assigning a retiree the maximum retirement allowance, which precludes a death benefit in the event the retiree does not elect a pension option within a 60-day deadline, was not violative of either plaintiff’s husband’s pension contract with defendant or any fiduciary duties owed him by defendant, and that plaintiff is neither a third-party beneficiary of the pension contract nor owed any fiduciary duties by defendant. Moreover, decedent accepted the maximum retirement allowance for three and one half years prior to his demise. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered April 5, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment and to add herself as a party plaintiff as executor of her husband’s estate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the IAS Court incorrectly determined that plaintiff’s action was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings (see, Koerner v State of New York, 62 NY2d 442, 446-447), it properly concluded that, on the merits, defendant’s practice of assigning a retiree the maximum retirement allowance, which precludes a death benefit in the event the retiree does not elect a pension option within a 60-day deadline, was not violative of either plaintiff’s husband’s pension contract with defendant or any fiduciary duties owed him by defendant, and that plaintiff is neither a third-party beneficiary of the pension contract nor owed any fiduciary duties by defendant. Moreover, decedent accepted the maximum retirement allowance for three and one half years prior to his demise. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 466, 637 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campo-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack