From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campo v. N.Y City Employees' Retirement Sys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.).


Although the IAS Court incorrectly determined that plaintiff's action was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings ( see, Koerner v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 442, 446-447), it properly concluded that, on the merits, defendant's practice of assigning a retiree the maximum retirement allowance, which precludes a death benefit in the event the retiree does not elect a pension option within a 60-day deadline, was not violative of either plaintiff's husband's pension contract with defendant or any fiduciary duties owed him by defendant, and that plaintiff is neither a third-party beneficiary of the pension contract nor owed any fiduciary duties by defendant. Moreover, decedent accepted the maximum retirement allowance for three and one half years prior to his demise.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Campo v. N.Y City Employees' Retirement Sys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Campo v. N.Y City Employees' Retirement Sys

Case Details

Full title:HELEN CAMPO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 365

Citing Cases

Massaro v. New York City Employees Ret. Sys

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.). Respondent New York City Employees'…

Hughey v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

Plaintiff cites to a Second Circuit case, wherein the federal district court noted that the plaintiff therein…