Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a determination by the New York State Comptroller denying a former correction officer's application for service retirement benefits under the Retirement and Social Security Law. The court affirmed the denial, finding that the petitioner failed to effectuate a bona fide termination of his subsequent employment with a school district, as required for retirement eligibility. Relying on precedent regarding simultaneous employment and retirement applications, the court confirmed the respondent's final determination and dismissed the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner effected a bona‑fide termination of employment sufficient to qualify for article 15 retirement benefits.
- Whether the administrative determination denying retirement benefits is proper under CPLR article 78 review.
Holdings
- The determination denying retirement benefits is affirmed because petitioner did not terminate his employment, did not tender a resignation, remained on payroll, and continued to work after the alleged retirement date.
Key quotations
“Petitioner worked as a correction officer for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision from May 1989 to September 2019. On April 17, 2019, petitioner began working as a substitute cleaner for the West Seneca Central School District.”
“For the reasons stated in Matter of Radwan v DiNapoli (___ AD3d ___ [3d Dept 2025] [decided herewith]), we confirm.”
Factual background
Petitioner worked as a correction officer from May 1989 to September 2019 and then as a substitute cleaner for a school district from April 2019 until June 2021. He applied for retirement benefits under article 15, stating retirement dates in September 2019, but continued to work after those dates and never submitted a resignation or was removed from payroll. The Retirement System determined he had not effected a bona‑fide termination and denied benefits.
Procedural history
Respondent denied petitioner’s application for Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 benefits, a hearing officer affirmed the denial, and petitioner appealed via a CPLR 78 action which was transferred to this Court.