From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poggi v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1986
492 N.E.2d 397 (N.Y. 1986)

Summary

In Poggi v. City of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 794, 492 N.E.2d 397, 501 N.Y.S.2d 324 (1986), a case also involving VSFs, the New York Court of Appeals summarily affirmed an order of the Appellate Division, but noted: "[W]e do not reach the question whether the variable supplements funds constitute a pension or retirement benefit," as the Appellate Division had in declining to accord the plaintiffs relief under N.Y. Const. art. V, § 7. Poggi, 67 N.Y.2d at 794, 492 N.E.2d at 397, 501 N.Y.S.2d at 324.

Summary of this case from Castellano v. Board of Trustees

Opinion

Submitted February 5, 1986

Decided March 18, 1986

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Israel Rubin, J.

Murray A. Gordon and James D. Bilik for appellants.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Jay C. Cooke and Paul T. Rephen of counsel), for respondents.

Raymond E. Kerno and Richard Hartman for intervenors-respondents.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Sullivan. We note that we do not reach the question whether the variable supplements funds constitute a pension or retirement benefit. That question is unnecessary to the determination of the issues before us: whether plaintiffs' pension contract rights or their equal protection rights have been impaired. (See also, Matter of Lippman v Board of Educ., 66 N.Y.2d 313.)

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur; Judge ALEXANDER taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Poggi v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1986
492 N.E.2d 397 (N.Y. 1986)

In Poggi v. City of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 794, 492 N.E.2d 397, 501 N.Y.S.2d 324 (1986), a case also involving VSFs, the New York Court of Appeals summarily affirmed an order of the Appellate Division, but noted: "[W]e do not reach the question whether the variable supplements funds constitute a pension or retirement benefit," as the Appellate Division had in declining to accord the plaintiffs relief under N.Y. Const. art. V, § 7. Poggi, 67 N.Y.2d at 794, 492 N.E.2d at 397, 501 N.Y.S.2d at 324.

Summary of this case from Castellano v. Board of Trustees
Case details for

Poggi v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JOHN E. POGGI et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 18, 1986

Citations

492 N.E.2d 397 (N.Y. 1986)
492 N.E.2d 397
501 N.Y.S.2d 324

Citing Cases

Gagliardo v. Dinkins

These retirees are statutorily termed "for service" retirees, as officers who have attained "twenty or more…

Ballentine v. Koch

The POVSF was created (as the Patrolmen's Variable Supplements Fund) in 1970 as a result of collective…