From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Tooley v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 1998
252 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 16, 1998


Petitioner, who retired after nearly 40 years of service with the Village of Scarsdale in Westchester County, challenges respondent's determination to exclude approximately $80,000 in "longevity pay" from his annual base salary for computation of his retirement benefits ( see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 431 Retire. Soc. Sec.). Fundamentally, retirement benefits are to be computed on the basis of an employee's regular salary and not on any kind of termination pay or other form of additional compensation paid in anticipation of retirement ( see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 431 Retire. Soc. Sec. [2], [3]; see also, Matter of Holland v. Regan, 208 A.D.2d 1096; Matter of Martone v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 105 A.D.2d 511 [decided under Education Law § 501 (11)(b)]). Furthermore, respondent is vested with exclusive authority to determine applications for retirement benefits and, if supported by substantial evidence, his determination must be upheld ( see, Matter of Bascom v. McCall, 221 A.D.2d 879).

In this case, ample evidentiary support for respondent's determination can be found in the characterization of the income as "longevity pay" in petitioner's employment contract, in the express contract provision that the payments were in recognition o petitioner's many years of "quality service", and by virtue of the fact that the enhanced compensation plan — providing for an 80% increase over petitioner's regular salary — was instituted after petitioner had already attained retirement age (67 years old) and that payments under the plan were made only during the final three years of petitioner's employment ( see, Matter of Holland v. Regan, supra; Matter of Martone v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., supra) Opposing evidence presented by petitioner, which provided arguable support for a contrary determination, merely created a credibility issue for respondent's resolution.

Mikell, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is, confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Tooley v. McCall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 1998
252 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Tooley v. McCall

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LOWELL J. TOOLEY, Petitioner, v. CARL McCALL, as…

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

Date published: Jul 16, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 259

Citing Cases

Franks v. Dinapoli

We affirm. Respondent is vested with exclusive authority concerning applications for retirement benefits,…

Matter of Davies v. State Local Police [3d Dept 1999

Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we cannot say that such determination is not supported by…