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.
Robert K. Holdman, Claim Claimant–Appellant, v. Office of Court Administration, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
_
Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered January 31, 2013, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss claimant's complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Claimant alleges that he resigned from his former positions as a Court of Claims Judge and acting Supreme Court Justice, relying on the erroneous advice of employees of defendant Office of Court Administration (OCA) that he was vested in his New York State Health Insurance Program (N.Y.SHIP). He also asserts that he would not have resigned when he did if not for this advice. He seeks to be reinstated to the NYSHIP, or to recover money damages.
Although the giving of advice by the OCA employees was ministerial in nature, which might subject the governmental body to liability (see Valdez v. City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 76–77 [2011]; see also Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95, 99 [2000] ), claimant has not alleged a sufficient special duty owed to him, as opposed to any other employee seeking advice from OCA (see Valdez, 18 NY3d at 76–77; McLean v. City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]; Lauer, 95 N.Y.2d at 99–100). In any event, it is uncontested that claimant is, in his present status, not eligible for NYSHIP benefits under the law, and defendants may not be estopped from applying the law to claimant based on the erroneous information given to him (see Matter of Galanthay v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 50 N.Y.2d 984, 986 [1980]; Goldstein v Teachers' Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 89 AD3d 501, 502 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Grella v. Hevesi, 38 AD3d 113, 117 [3d Dept 2007] ). The narrow exception to the rule that estoppel may not be invoked to prevent a governmental agency from performing its duty is not applicable here (Matter of Grella, 38 AD3d at 117–118).
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: 1262 5 1211 82
Decided: June 05, 2014
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)