From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Gammone v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 2002
299 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-09178

Argued October 17, 2002.

November 25, 2002.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in effect, to compel the respondents to refund to participants in the "[t]wenty-five-year and age fifty-five retirement program for New York City transit authority members" pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 604-b, certain membership contributions.

Kennedy Schwartz Cure, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Arthur Z. Schwartz and Larry Magarik of counsel), for petitioner Transit Workers Union of Greater New York Local 100, AFL-CIO, and Stuart Salles, New York, N.Y. for petitioners Tony Gammone and Subway Surface Supervisors Association (one brief filed).

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for respondents John J. Murphy and New York City Employees Retirement System.

Martin B. Schnabel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. Zagajeski of counsel), for respondent New York City Transit Authority.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION JUDGMENT

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court erred in transferring this proceeding to this court (see Matter of Anonymous v. Grievance Comm. of State of N.Y., 244 A.D.2d 549). In the interest of judicial economy, however, this court will determine the proceeding (see CPLR 7804[g]).

Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the affected participants in the "[t]wenty-five-year and age fifty-five retirement program for New York City transit authority members" (Retirement and Social Services Law § 604-b) are not entitled to a refund of their additional 2.3% membership contributions. The statute which established the program does not authorize such a refund (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 604-b[e][8][iii]; Morrissey v. New York State Employees' Retirement Sys., 298 N.Y. 442; Matter of Brei v. Regan, 89 A.D.2d 1060, 1061; Donovan v. City of Rye, 271 A.D. 836).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Gammone v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 2002
299 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Gammone v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF TONY GAMMONE, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, v. JOHN J…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 25, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
750 N.Y.S.2d 531

Citing Cases

Rock v. N.Y.C. Emps.' Ret. Sys.

Shortly thereafter, he became a member of NYCERS and was placed "in the [Tier 4 Basic] 62/5 Retirement Plan…

O'Brien v. Dinapoli

To the extent that petitioner argues that the Comptroller acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not extending…