Mazziotti v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazziotti v. Kelly

129 A.D.3d 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 869

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

DecidedJune 25, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 618 (Mazziotti v. Kelly) 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

Mazziotti v. Kelly, 129 A.D.3d 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered May 2, 2014, which denied the petition seeking, among other things, to annul respondents’ determination, dated September 12, 2013, denying retroactive accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

When respondents reclassified petitioner’s retirement to ADR [619]*619on September 11, 2013, they were constrained by statute to deny petitioner’s request that the ADR benefits be paid retroactively (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [2] [b]). The remedy, if any, lies with legislative action.

Petitioner’s request for sanctions is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered May 2, 2014, which denied the petition seeking, among other things, to annul respondents’ determination, dated September 12, 2013, denying retroactive accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

When respondents reclassified petitioner’s retirement to ADR [619]*619on September 11, 2013, they were constrained by statute to deny petitioner’s request that the ADR benefits be paid retroactively (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [2] [b]). The remedy, if any, lies with legislative action.

Petitioner’s request for sanctions is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazziotti-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2015.