Nager v. Teachers' Retirement System of City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nager v. Teachers' Retirement System of City of New York

261 A.D.2d 292, 691 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783

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

DecidedMay 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 292 (Nager v. Teachers' Retirement System of City of New York) 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

Nager v. Teachers' Retirement System of City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 292, 691 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered June 12, 1998, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking legal and equitable relief for defendants’ allegedly improper investment policies with respect to the Variable B Annuity Program (L 1982, ch 735), the motion court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment to permit plaintiffs to complete discovery (CPLR 3212 [f]). Further, while defendants correctly point out that the “[ilntent and purposes” statement found in section 1 of chapter 735 was never enacted in the form of an amendment to the New York City Administrative Code and thus “do[es] not control or affect its terms” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 122), it is, nonetheless an expression of how the Legislature intended the Variable B fund portfolio to be composed (see, Price v Forrest, 173 US 410, 427; Westchester County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Mengel, 266 App Div 151, 155, affd 292 NY 121), and indicates with some clarity that the Variable B Annuity fund portfolio was envisioned by the Legislature as including both fixed income securities and equities. Accordingly, the motion court properly found that there was a factual issue raised as to whether the Trustees acted prudently in failing to include equities in the Variable B fund portfolio (see, Matter of Janes, 90 NY2d 41, 5052). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Andidas, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered June 12, 1998, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking legal and equitable relief for defendants’ allegedly improper investment policies with respect to the Variable B Annuity Program (L 1982, ch 735), the motion court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment to permit plaintiffs to complete discovery (CPLR 3212 [f]). Further, while defendants correctly point out that the “[ilntent and purposes” statement found in section 1 of chapter 735 was never enacted in the form of an amendment to the New York City Administrative Code and thus “do[es] not control or affect its terms” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 122), it is, nonetheless an expression of how the Legislature intended the Variable B fund portfolio to be composed (see, Price v Forrest, 173 US 410, 427; Westchester County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Mengel, 266 App Div 151, 155, affd 292 NY 121), and indicates with some clarity that the Variable B Annuity fund portfolio was envisioned by the Legislature as including both fixed income securities and equities. Accordingly, the motion court properly found that there was a factual issue raised as to whether the Trustees acted prudently in failing to include equities in the Variable B fund portfolio (see, Matter of Janes, 90 NY2d 41, 5052). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Andidas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 292, 691 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nager-v-teachers-retirement-system-of-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack