Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Aramintha J. GRANT, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. John MURPHY, etc., Respondent-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered September 15, 2000, which denied the application and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul a determination of respondent John Murphy, Executive Director of the New York City Employees Retirement System (“NYCERS”), which provided for an annual retirement allowance to petitioner of $21,291.72, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court applied the proper standard for article 78 review in concluding that there was a rational basis for NYCERS's determination and that it was not arbitrary and capricious (Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230-231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321). The court properly concluded that NYCERS's interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Code was rational and therefore entitled to deference (see, Matter of Golf v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 91 N.Y.2d 656, 662, 667, 674 N.Y.S.2d 600, 697 N.E.2d 555). NYCERS has set forth a detailed presentation of its calculation of petitioner's retirement allowance and we agree that its determination was not arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner's arguments are based on inapplicable provisions of the Retirement and Social Security Law and her factual claims, apparently based on her misunderstanding of the statements provided her, are not supported by the record. Petitioner's constitutional claim is without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 13, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)