Todaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Todaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

42 A.D.2d 887, 347 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 11, 1973·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 23, 1971, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent [888] of striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which dismisses the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff is not entitled to retirement benefits retroactive to July 1, 1968 in accordance with section B3-36.6 of the Administrative Code; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Since this was an action for declaratory judgment, the complaint should have not been dismissed merely because plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration sought by him. The court at Special Term, in granting summary judgment, should have made a declaration of the rights of the parties with respect to the subject matter of the litigation. (Sweeney v. Cannon, 30 N Y 2d 633; Fhagen v. Miller, 36 A D 2d 926, 927, affd. 29 N Y 2d 348; Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 23, 1971, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent [888] of striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which dismisses the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff is not entitled to retirement benefits retroactive to July 1, 1968 in accordance with section B3-36.6 of the Administrative Code; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Since this was an action for declaratory judgment, the complaint should have not been dismissed merely because plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration sought by him. The court at Special Term, in granting summary judgment, should have made a declaration of the rights of the parties with respect to the subject matter of the litigation. (Sweeney v. Cannon, 30 N Y 2d 633; Fhagen v. Miller, 36 A D 2d 926, 927, affd. 29 N Y 2d 348; Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

Todaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 42 A.D.2d 887, 347 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

42 A.D.2d 887 (Todaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related