Fox v. Waterbury Retirement Bd., App., No. Cv99-0151397s (Sep. 14, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Fox v. Waterbury Retirement Bd., App., No. Cv99-0151397s (Sep. 14, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12486

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 14, 1999

DocketNo. CV99-0151397S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12486 (Fox v. Waterbury Retirement Bd., App., No. Cv99-0151397s (Sep. 14, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. Waterbury Retirement Bd., App., No. Cv99-0151397s (Sep. 14, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12486 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS #101 It is uncontroverted that the plaintiff failed to appeal the decision of the Retirement Board of September 9, 1998 within the 15 day period pursuant to § 2709 of The Waterbury City Charter.

It is also uncontroverted that she requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision on December 30, 1998. She alleges the Board granted the reconsideration request and held a hearing on February 10, 1999 at which time it accepted additional evidence presumably relevant to her claim that she had new information, to wit: that she had not been informed that the Board had adopted a resolution on December 9, 1996 limiting the time period for "buying back" prior years of employment service in Waterbury. The Board once again denied her request.

Since the Board heard new evidence, the plaintiff's request for reconsideration was treated by the Board as a request de novo for pension benefits.

The court has reviewed Leonardi v. City of Waterbury, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 143187 (Feb. 9, 1998, Shortall, J.) (21 Conn. L. Rptr. 342). The court agrees with Judge Shortall's reasoning in that case and finds it valid here.

Therefore the Motion to Dismiss is denied as the plaintiff's appeal was timely with regard to the decision of February 10, 1999.

SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS #101 It is uncontroverted that the plaintiff failed to appeal the decision of the Retirement Board of September 9, 1998 within the 15 day period pursuant to § 2709 of The Waterbury City Charter.

It is also uncontroverted that she requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision on December 30, 1998. She alleges the Board granted the reconsideration request and held a hearing on February 10, 1999 at which time it accepted additional evidence presumably relevant to her claim that she had new information, to wit: that she had not been informed that the Board had adopted a resolution on December 9, 1996 limiting the time period for "buying back" prior years of employment service in Waterbury. The Board once again denied her request.

Since the Board heard new evidence, the plaintiff's request for reconsideration was treated by the Board as a request de novo for pension benefits.

The court has reviewed Leonardi v. City of Waterbury, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 143187 (Feb. 9, 1998, Shortall, J.) (21 Conn. L. Rptr. 342). The court agrees with Judge Shortall's reasoning in that case and finds it valid here.

Therefore the Motion to Dismiss is denied as the plaintiff's appeal was timely with regard to the decision of February 10, 1999.

SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-waterbury-retirement-bd-app-no-cv99-0151397s-sep-14-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack