Kivo v. Levitt

New York Court of Appeals

Kivo v. Levitt

409 N.E.2d 1359, 50 N.Y.2d 1017, 431 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2539

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 409 N.E.2d 1359 (Kivo v. Levitt) 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

Kivo v. Levitt, 409 N.E.2d 1359, 50 N.Y.2d 1017, 431 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2539 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, essentially for the reasons stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice Staley at the Appellate Division.

We agree with the court below that respondent’s interpretation of section 2 (subd 2, par a) of the Retirement and Social Security Law as excluding deferred pay increases not yet paid to the retiree from the wage base for computation of pension benefits is entirely proper and must be upheld. We note, however, that we express no opinion on the question whether section 431 of the Retirement and Social Security Law would require the same result had petitioner actually received the [1019]*1019pay increases in issue as a lump sum, for this question is not presented by the facts of this case.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, essentially for the reasons stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice Staley at the Appellate Division.

We agree with the court below that respondent’s interpretation of section 2 (subd 2, par a) of the Retirement and Social Security Law as excluding deferred pay increases not yet paid to the retiree from the wage base for computation of pension benefits is entirely proper and must be upheld. We note, however, that we express no opinion on the question whether section 431 of the Retirement and Social Security Law would require the same result had petitioner actually received the [1019]*1019pay increases in issue as a lump sum, for this question is not presented by the facts of this case.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 N.E.2d 1359, 50 N.Y.2d 1017, 431 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kivo-v-levitt-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack