Ivan v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ivan v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

63 A.D.3d 572, 880 N.Y.S.2d 486

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 572 (Ivan v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene) 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

Ivan v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 63 A.D.3d 572, 880 N.Y.S.2d 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 3, 2009, which denied petitioners’ application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to compel respondent Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) [573]*573to take the necessary actions to provide petitioners with benefits of membership in the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS), and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioners are not entitled to retirement credit with NYCERS by reason of having worked for private corporations under contract with DHMH but paid with funds provided by the State is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Eastman v Department of City wide Admin. Servs., 266 AD2d 53 [1999], citing definition of “city-service” in Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-101 [3] [a] as service “paid for by the city”). Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ. [See 2009 NY Slip Op 30120(U).]

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 3, 2009, which denied petitioners’ application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to compel respondent Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) [573]*573to take the necessary actions to provide petitioners with benefits of membership in the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS), and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioners are not entitled to retirement credit with NYCERS by reason of having worked for private corporations under contract with DHMH but paid with funds provided by the State is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Eastman v Department of City wide Admin. Servs., 266 AD2d 53 [1999], citing definition of “city-service” in Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-101 [3] [a] as service “paid for by the city”). Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ. [See 2009 NY Slip Op 30120(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 572, 880 N.Y.S.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivan-v-new-york-city-department-of-health-mental-hygiene-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack