Opinion
February 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.
Petitioner is the daughter and option beneficiary of Bessie Worrell, who was a member of respondent State and Local Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter the System). Upon retirement, effective May 31, 1983, Worrell elected to receive her retirement benefits under "option 1/2". Worrell received her pension benefits pursuant to that option until her death on December 10, 1992, at which time a final payment of $824.83 was forwarded to petitioner representing the prorated portion of Worrell's pension up to the date of her death plus the unpaid portion of her initial annuity reserve. Dissatisfied with the amount of death benefits paid, petitioner requested a hearing. Respondent Comptroller determined that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the "option 1/2" benefit was not properly paid to her. Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a judgment directing respondents to change Worrell's option election to "option 1" with a corresponding change in the calculation of benefits.
We confirm. Significantly, although petitioner alleges in her petition that Worrell's mental capacity was impaired at the time she elected "option 1/2" and Worrell never intended to choose that option, petitioner did not make that claim at the hearing or to the Comptroller ( see, Matter of Puterio v. Regan, 161 A.D.2d 1109), and no proof to that effect was offered or introduced ( see, Matter of Cummings v. New York State Local Empls. Retirement Sys., 187 A.D.2d 862, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 834). In any event, the thrust of petitioner's allegations is that the election was a mistake or was one that was made after insufficient advice was given by the System's employees. This Court has previously found that a claim of mistake by itself is not sufficient to cause an election to be set aside ( see, e.g., Matter of Swick v. New York State Local Empls. Retirement Sys., 213 A.D.2d 934; Matter of Cummings v. New York State Local Empls. Retirement Sys., supra.) We have also noted that the System is "not required to insure that proposed retirees receive the best possible entitlement" ( Matter of Cummings v. New York State Local Empls. Retirement Sys., supra, at 862; see, Matter of Nutt v. New York State Empls. Retirement Sys., 72 A.D.2d 898, 900).
With respect to the issue of the proper calculation of benefits, we note that the System presented proof establishing the propriety of said payments and, therefore, petitioner's conclusory allegations of error, unsupported by any credible data, were properly found to be insufficient to establish that the System erred in its computation of benefits under the appropriate statute ( see generally, Matter of Cannavo v. Regan, 122 A.D.2d 523, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 612; Matter of Krebbeks v Regan, 109 A.D.2d 1008).
Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.