Huffe v. Jarcho

New York Court of Appeals

Huffe v. Jarcho

402 N.E.2d 1163, 49 N.Y.2d 726, 426 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2096, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2177

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 402 N.E.2d 1163 (Huffe v. Jarcho) 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

Huffe v. Jarcho, 402 N.E.2d 1163, 49 N.Y.2d 726, 426 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2096, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2177 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted for review of the facts, if any, relevant to the determination.

When the eligibility requirements of the union pension plan were amended in 1963, though the phrase "covered employment with a contributing employer” was substituted at various other points for "union membership”, the provision mandating a 15-year union membership period was deleted in its entirety. Thus, there was no 15-year requirement of any kind, with the result, as we recently noted in Mitzner v Jarcho (44 NY2d 39, 47), that "prior to the 1966 amendment one could qualify for a full pension, having worked for contributing employers for only a very brief period”. The Appellate Division therefore erred in construing the plan prior to the 1966 amendment as requiring 15 nonconsecutive years of covered employment with contributing employers.

The imposition of this condition on eligibility, which neither plaintiff satisfied, led the Appellate Division to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for pension benefits without ever reaching the issue of whether the application of the 15-year continuous employment requirement to plaintiffs was arbitrary and unreasonable (see Mitzner v Jarcho, supra, pp 46-47).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the [729]*729Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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 reversed and the case remitted for review of the facts, if any, relevant to the determination.

When the eligibility requirements of the union pension plan were amended in 1963, though the phrase "covered employment with a contributing employer” was substituted at various other points for "union membership”, the provision mandating a 15-year union membership period was deleted in its entirety. Thus, there was no 15-year requirement of any kind, with the result, as we recently noted in Mitzner v Jarcho (44 NY2d 39, 47), that "prior to the 1966 amendment one could qualify for a full pension, having worked for contributing employers for only a very brief period”. The Appellate Division therefore erred in construing the plan prior to the 1966 amendment as requiring 15 nonconsecutive years of covered employment with contributing employers.

The imposition of this condition on eligibility, which neither plaintiff satisfied, led the Appellate Division to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for pension benefits without ever reaching the issue of whether the application of the 15-year continuous employment requirement to plaintiffs was arbitrary and unreasonable (see Mitzner v Jarcho, supra, pp 46-47).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the [729]*729Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Peter Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board (Local 2, u.a.) Harvey B. Rehner, John j.murray, Lawrence Felder, and Morris Olshina, Individually and in Theircapacities as Chairman, Co-Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Secretary,respectively, and Trusteesindividually and in Their Capacities as Trustees, Hilda Friedlander, as for the Estate of Arthur Friedlander, Deceased v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board (Local 2, u.a.) Harvey Rehner, John J. Murray, Lawrence Felder, and Morris Olshina, Individually and in Their Capacities Aschairman, Co-Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Secretary, Respectively Louisdesiderio,morris Olshina, William Greenblatt, Leonard X. Farbman, Lawrence Felder, Andwilliam Gross, Individually and in Their Capacities as Trustees of the Jointplumbing Industry Board Pension Fund and Local Union No. 2 of the Unitedassociation Ofjourneymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, John j.murray, Individually and in His Capacity as President, Louis Krupka v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board (Local 2, u.a.) Harvey Rehner, John J. Murray, Lawrence Felder, and Morris Olshina, Individually and in Their Capacities Aschairman, Co-Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Secretary, Respectively Louisdesiderio,morris Olshina, William Greenblatt, Leonard X. Farbman, Lawrence Felder, Andwilliam Gross, Individually and in Their Capacities as Trustees of the Jointplumbing Industry Board Pension Fund and Local Union No. 2 of the Unitedassociation Ofjourneymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry John j.murray, Individually and in His Capacity as President

623 F.2d 196 (Second Circuit, 1980)

Schulman v. Jarcho

405 N.E.2d 184 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 N.E.2d 1163, 49 N.Y.2d 726, 426 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2096, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffe-v-jarcho-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack