Matter of Mussaw v. DiNapoli

2026 NY Slip Op 04898 · Appellate Division, Third Department · August 6, 2026 · No. CV-25-0282

Summary

The New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System denied a former correction officer's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits because he had resigned from his DOCCS position to work for a village and subsequently retire under a different benefit scheme. The petitioner challenged the denial via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that the relevant statutes do not preclude consecutive applications for service and disability retirement. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the respondent's determination, holding that eligibility for performance of duty disability benefits under Article 14 requires the applicant to be actively employed as a correction officer at the time of retirement. The court further concluded that the Legislature did not intend to allow former correction officers to claim these benefits after electing service retirement under Article 15.

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.; Garry, P.J.; Pritzker; Powers; Corcoran
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
August 6, 2026
Docket number
CV-25-0282
Procedural posture
CPLR article 78 proceeding to review denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits
Standard of review
substantial evidence and reasonable statutory interpretation
Precedential value
published
Parties
Charles Mussaw v. Thomas P. DiNapoli
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawstatutory interpretationagency adjudication

Practice areas

administrative lawemployment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a former correction officer who retired under article 15 is eligible for performance‑of‑duty disability retirement benefits under article 14.
  2. Whether the respondent’s statutory interpretation of the Retirement and Social Security Law is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings

  1. Petitioner is ineligible for article 14 performance‑of‑duty disability retirement because eligibility requires current employment as a correction officer; the respondent’s denial is affirmed.
  2. The respondent’s interpretation is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence; the determination is affirmed.

Key quotations

When respondent's determination turns upon a question of statutory interpretation, this Court's principal responsibility "is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature". (at 1)
The doctrine of estoppel will not provide eligibility to retirement benefits where by statute a person clearly does not qualify, even if the advice of the administrative employees was erroneous. (at 1)

Factual background

Petitioner Charles Mussaw was a correction officer with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) who took a part‑time village job in 2015, retired under article 15 based on that village employment, and later applied for a performance‑of‑duty disability retirement under article 14, which was denied because he was no longer a correction officer at the time of retirement.

Procedural history

Petitioner applied for service retirement under article 15, later applied for disability retirement under article 14; the Retirement System denied the disability claim, a Hearing Officer affirmed, and the matter was appealed to this Court under CPLR article 78.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…