Shafran v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shafran v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

199 A.D.2d 224, 608 N.Y.S.2d 64

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 224 (Shafran v. New York City Employees' Retirement System) 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

Shafran v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 199 A.D.2d 224, 608 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.) entered March 18, 1993, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[225]*225In 1986, respondent New York City Employees’ Retirement System unambiguously rejected in writing petitioner’s request for transfer of retirement benefits from Plan A to Plan B. Therefore, this action commenced in July 1992 is time-barred (see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714). Petitioner’s breach of contract claim based on the 1988 recoupment agreement between the parties was not raised before the IAS Court and, in any event, is without merit. (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.) entered March 18, 1993, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[225]*225In 1986, respondent New York City Employees’ Retirement System unambiguously rejected in writing petitioner’s request for transfer of retirement benefits from Plan A to Plan B. Therefore, this action commenced in July 1992 is time-barred (see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714). Petitioner’s breach of contract claim based on the 1988 recoupment agreement between the parties was not raised before the IAS Court and, in any event, is without merit. (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 224, 608 N.Y.S.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shafran-v-new-york-city-employees-retirement-system-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack