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.
— Mara Gajevska, / Plaintiff–Appellant, v.
Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, et al., Defendants–Respondents. IN RE: Mara Gajevska, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, Respondent–Respondent.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Inga Van Eysden of counsel), for Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, respondent.
Coritsidis, Sotirakis & Saketos, PLLC, Astoria (John A. Sotirakis of counsel), for Harvey S. Brown, respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered May 1, 2012, which, inter alia, denied the petition seeking a judgment that petitioner was entitled to either a determination of her rights as contingent beneficiary under the qualified pension plan (QPP) of Steven J. Brown (decedent), that she was entitled to the payment of benefits as contingent beneficiary under the QPP of decedent, or directing respondent to pay petitioner benefits as a contingent beneficiary of the QPP of decedent, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 23, 2012, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that, inter alia, plaintiff was entitled to the subject retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The parties agree that the four month statute of limitations controls this action, which challenges an agency determination. The court properly determined that petitioner/plaintiff was provided with notice by respondent on September 18, 2009, that she would not receive the member's retirement benefits as a contingent beneficiary because he died prior to his retirement date, and that the designated in-service beneficiary was entitled to the benefits. The court properly found that petitioner failed to file a proceeding to challenge that determination within the requisite four-month period (CPLR 217[1] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1122 8 1122 9 1157 28 10
Decided: December 03, 2013
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)