Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Galanthay v. New York State Teachers'ret. Sys.

Matter of Galanthay v. New York State Teachers'ret. Sys.

409 N.E.2d 945, 50 N.Y.2d 984, 431 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2521
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 26, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 409 N.E.2d 945 (Matter of Galanthay v. New York State Teachers'ret. Sys.) 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
Matter of Galanthay v. New York State Teachers'ret. Sys., 409 N.E.2d 945, 50 N.Y.2d 984, 431 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2521 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Con. G. Cholakis at Special Term.

Under section 525 of the Education Law the retirement board is mandated to correct any errors in the computation of benefit entitlement on the part of the members of the system. Thus, while the preliminary evaluation of petitioner’s pension rights may have indicated sufficient service credit to entitle her to a retirement benefit, the board, on receipt of additional information indicating insufficient service credit for a pension, was obligated to correct the error and seek repayment of the funds already received (Matter of Newcomb v New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, 43 AD2d 353, affd 36 NY2d 953).

The retirement system’s statutory responsibility, supported by broad public policy considerations, requires that it take all necessary steps to insure the financial integrity of the pension fund. That duty could not have been properly discharged without requiring the petitioner to serve the minimum period of time necessary to entitle her to a pension. For this reason the courts below were correct in their holding that the original erroneous calculations could not be the basis for an estoppel. "The doctrine of estoppel will not reach so far as to hold an individual eligible for vested retirement where by statute, he clearly does not qualify for such eligibility” (Mat *987 ter of Boudreau v Levitt, 67 AD2d 1053, 1054, mot for lv to app den 47 NY2d 706).

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

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of Lake v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.
202 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Ly v. New York City Employees Retirement Sys.
2020 NY Slip Op 07890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Zamostina v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.
2020 NY Slip Op 07583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Bohlen v. DiNapoli
2018 NY Slip Op 5720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Awe v. D'Alessandro
2017 NY Slip Op 7437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Koenig v. DiNapoli
139 A.D.3d 1300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Holdman v. Office of Court Administration
118 A.D.3d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Evans v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System
98 A.D.3d 1221 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Goldstein v. Teachers' Retirement System
89 A.D.3d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Palandra v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System
84 A.D.3d 1689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Jensen-Dooling v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System
68 A.D.3d 1264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Blais v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System
68 A.D.3d 1266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Barry v. University of Alaska
85 P.3d 1022 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2004)
Scheurer v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
223 A.D.2d 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Barrett v. Messer
212 A.D.2d 383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Barbera v. New York City Employees Retirement System
211 A.D.2d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Abbatiello v. Regan
205 A.D.2d 1027 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Brosnahan v. New York State Employees' Retirement System
174 A.D.2d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Limongelli v. New York State Employees' Retirement System
173 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Ginocchio v. New York State Employees' Retirement System
136 A.D.2d 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
409 N.E.2d 945, 50 N.Y.2d 984, 431 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-galanthay-v-new-york-state-teachersret-sys-ny-1980.