CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2003

Collins v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Petitioner Odessa Collins, an employee of the City of New York Human Resources Administration, challenged NYCERS' denial of her application to purchase premembership retirement service credit for her employment at various day-care centers between 1970 and 1982. Collins argued that her service at HRA-licensed day-care centers, which were under contract with the City, should qualify for credit under Retirement and Social Security Law § 609. NYCERS denied the application, stating that day-care center employees were not on the city payroll and therefore not eligible for NYCERS membership or credit. The court upheld NYCERS' determination, finding it rational and not arbitrary or capricious, as Collins' employment was not

Retirement Service CreditPublic EmploymentDay Care CentersNYCERSPre-Membership ServiceCity PayrollParticipating EmployerArbitrary and CapriciousRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Law
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07437 [154 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2017

Matter of Awe v. D'Alessandro

Margaret Awe, a dual employee of both New York State and New York City, sought to have her combined salaries aggregated for pension benefit calculations upon retirement. The New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) declined, considering only her City salary. Awe initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court granted, annulling NYCERS's determination. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, confirming NYCERS's original determination. The court ruled that NYCERS's refusal to aggregate salaries from state and city employment was not arbitrary and capricious, citing statutory requirements that aggregated salaries must stem from 'city-service,' which her state employment was not.

Retirement benefitsPublic employeesDual employmentPension calculationCPLR article 78 proceedingStatutory interpretationCity-serviceNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemAppellate DivisionAdministrative Code
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Thomas F. Morris, a former New York City Department of Transportation employee, applied for accidental disability benefits from NYCERS, which were denied on February 19, 1999. He subsequently signed a Final Medical Review Waiver, undergoing a Special Medical Review Committee's assessment, which again denied his benefits. Morris filed an action against NYCERS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process violations because NYCERS failed to inform him of his right to judicial review under CPLR Article 78 as an alternative to the Special Medical Review, and that the Committee's procedures were flawed. The court ruled that NYCERS failed to provide sufficient notice for a knowing waiver of his Article 78 rights. However, the court found no due process violation in the Special Medical Review Committee’s procedures themselves.

Due ProcessWaiver of RightsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionDisability BenefitsNYCERSArticle 78 ProceedingSummary JudgmentProperty InterestNotice Requirements
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aronson v. New York City Employees Retirement System

Esther Aronson, a former New York City social worker, sued the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Aronson sought reinstatement in NYCERS, arguing that her pension rights were unlawfully terminated without due process when she was unable to transfer pension plans in May 1988, five years after her dismissal from city service in 1983. NYCERS moved for dismissal, asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court converted the motion to summary judgment and ruled in favor of NYCERS, concluding that Aronson's cause of action accrued on June 1, 1983, the date of her termination, as she knew or should have known of the impact on her pension rights at that time. Consequently, her claims were dismissed as time-barred.

Pension ForfeitureStatute of LimitationsDue Process Clause42 U.S.C. Section 1983Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeRetirement PlansConstitutional Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. New York City Employees Retirement System

David King, a former New York City employee, initiated a federal action against NYCERS after his Tier 1 pension reinstatement was revoked, reducing his benefits to Tier 4. King had worked for the EPA (1971-1977, Tier 1) and TBTA (1984-2000, Tier 4). After applying in 2004, NYCERS initially confirmed his Tier 1 eligibility and paid benefits from March 2008. However, in September 2008, NYCERS declared the reinstatement an error. His state Article 78 proceeding challenging this was dismissed as untimely. The federal district court, following a remand from the Second Circuit, found that equitable estoppel applied to the statute of limitations for King's due process claim, and that NYCERS failed to provide an adequate pre-deprivation hearing. The court also sustained his breach of contract claim. The General Business Law claim was dismissed. The parties ultimately settled the action based on the state contract claim.

Pension BenefitsTier 1Tier 4Due ProcessBreach of ContractEquitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsFederal Court JurisdictionNew York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS)Administrative Law
References
103
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07197 [189 AD3d 841]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Lanni v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Louis Lanni, a Sanitation General Superintendent, sought accidental disability retirement benefits from the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) after sustaining injuries on duty. His application was denied by the NYCERS' Board of Trustees, which adopted the Medical Board's finding that the incident, though causing disability, was not an accident. Lanni then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court, Kings County, annulled the NYCERS' determination, ruling that Lanni's injury, resulting from a trip on a loose sidewalk, constituted an accidental injury and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concurring that the fall was a sudden, fortuitous, and unexpected event outside his ordinary duties, making the determination to deny benefits arbitrary and capricious.

Accidental Disability RetirementCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAccidental Injury DefinitionOrdinary Employment DutiesMedical Board RecommendationBoard of Trustees DeterminationSanitation General SuperintendentRemittitur
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goode v. New York City Transit Police Department

Petitioner, a transit police officer, sought an accident disability pension after suffering a nervous breakdown following administrative actions regarding his prior ordinary disability retirement application due to hearing loss. After being approved for retirement, his status was put under review for nine months, and he was eventually ordered back to work, triggering severe emotional distress. His subsequent application for accident disability, citing a mental-emotional injury from this process, was denied by NYCERS for lack of an 'accident' record. The court, analogizing to Workers’ Compensation concepts like 'compensation neurosis' and acknowledging that mental-emotional injuries can be compensable, denied NYCERS’ motion to dismiss. It granted the petitioner's application to the extent of compelling NYCERS to file an answer, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.

Accident Disability PensionCPLR Article 78Emotional TraumaNervous BreakdownWorkers' Compensation Law AnalogiesCompensation NeurosisMental-Emotional InjuryRetirement System ReviewTransit Police OfficerAdministrative Code § B3-40.0
References
8
Case No. Index No. 159601/16 Appeal No. 15885 Case No. 2021-02096
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Matter of Nespoli v. Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Petitioners, members of NYCERS and other New York City retirement systems, were initially placed in Tier 4 after being hired as uniformed sanitation workers post-April 1, 2012. In 2016, NYCERS reclassified them from the Tier 4 Sanitation 20-Year retirement plan (SA-20) to the revised Tier 3/Tier 6 Sanitation 22-Year retirement plan (SA-22), citing an error. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to annul this determination. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, concluding that the reclassification was not an error of law, nor did it violate the New York State Constitution, as petitioners were never contractually entitled to SA-20 benefits. The court also rejected the argument for equitable estoppel, noting NYCERS' statutory mandate to correct administrative errors.

Retirement benefitsPublic employeesReclassificationNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemTier 4Tier 3/Tier 6Sanitation 20-Year retirement planSanitation 22-Year retirement planRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR article 78
References
5
Case No. 189 AD3d 1225
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2020

Matter of Georgia Asciutto v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Georgia Asciutto sought to annul a determination by the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) and its Board of Trustees, which offset her workers' compensation death benefit against an accidental death benefit (ADB) she was awarded. Her decedent, a former executive director, died from illnesses related to his exposure to toxins during the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks. NYCERS approved her application for ADB but then reduced the award by the amount of her workers' compensation death benefits, citing Administrative Code §§ 13-149 and 13-176. The Supreme Court denied Asciutto's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision which the Appellate Division affirmed. The Appellate Division found NYCERS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious, as Administrative Code § 13-176 (b) aims to prevent double awards for the same accidental cause of death, a principle supported by prior case law.

Accidental Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation OffsetNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemCPLR Article 78World Trade Center ResponderDeath BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative CodeDouble RecoveryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campo v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Helen Campo, widow of a former NYC Department of Sanitation employee, sued the City of New York and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) after she was denied survivor's benefits following her husband's death. Her husband had retired on disability and allegedly selected a pension option providing survivor's benefits, but NYCERS claimed no such selection was received, defaulting him to a plan without these benefits. Campo contended she was deprived of a property right without due process, challenging the adequacy of NYCERS' administrative procedures and their refusal to grant her a hearing. The court, applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test, determined that a pre-deprivation hearing was not required for pension benefits and that existing post-deprivation state remedies, such as an Article 78 proceeding or breach of contract action, provided adequate due process. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiff's motion for sanctions was denied.

Due processSurvivor benefitsPension rightsAdministrative lawMotion to dismissConstitutional lawFederal litigationRetirement systemProperty interestPost-deprivation remedies
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 21 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational