Huffe v. Jarcho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huffe v. Jarcho

75 A.D.2d 773, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348

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

DecidedMay 22, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.2d 773 (Huffe v. Jarcho) 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

Huffe v. Jarcho, 75 A.D.2d 773, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 30, 1978, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to pensions, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Nadel, J., at Trial Term, without costs and without disbursements. This court reversed the aforesaid judgment and declared that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a pension because they did not have 15 nonconsecutive years of covered employment (64 AD2d 960). On February 5, 1980, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the matter for consideration of the question whether the 1966 amendment was arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiffs’ applications (49 NY2d 726). After consideration of the question presented on this remittitur, this court affirms as above stated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 30, 1978, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to pensions, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Nadel, J., at Trial Term, without costs and without disbursements. This court reversed the aforesaid judgment and declared that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a pension because they did not have 15 nonconsecutive years of covered employment (64 AD2d 960). On February 5, 1980, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the matter for consideration of the question whether the 1966 amendment was arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiffs’ applications (49 NY2d 726). After consideration of the question presented on this remittitur, this court affirms as above stated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 773, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffe-v-jarcho-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack