Retiree’s application to change the retirement option
selected filed more than thirty days after her effective date of retirement
rejected as untimely
Feuer v State of New York, 2012 NY Slip Op 09129, Appellate
Division, Third Department
Prior to retiring in June 2009, a teacher, a Tier 4
member of the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS], met her
financial advisor and a TRS representative for a preretirement
consultation. The teacher then submitted her application for retirement,
selecting the option entitled "Largest Lump Sum," which provided the
"largest possible lump sum payment to a beneficiary" following
the member's death (emphasis in the decision), and designated her niece and nephew as her
beneficiaries.
The retirement application the teacher completed also
detailed another option available to a retiree entitled the "Maximum"
option. It described this option as follows: "MAXIMUM — Do not
designate a beneficiary if you select this option. This election will provide
you with the largest possible annual benefit. All payments will cease at your
death."
In addition, the application stated that, in the event an applicant wished to change options, notice of such a change had to be received
by the Retirement System "within 30 days after [the] effective date of
retirement" — in this retiree's case, no later than July 30, 2009.
After submitting her application, the retiree received a
letter from the Retirement System dated March 23, 2010, summarizing her
retirement benefits and established her monthly pension payment. More then 30
days after the effective date of her retirement, however, the now retired
teacher notified the Retirement System that she wanted to change her retirement
option selection from "the Largest Lump Sum" option to the "Maximum" option.
The Retirement System denied her request and the retiree filed
a petition with the Court of Claims seeking permission to file a late
notice of claim.*
The Court of Claims denied her request because the retiree,
by her own admission, did not notify the Retirement System that she wanted to
change her retirement option within 30 days of the effective date of her
retirement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ ruling,
explaining that the Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction that has
no capacity "to grant strictly equitable relief, [although it] may grant
incidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover money
damages in appropriation, contract or tort cases."
Although the relief that the retiree seeks is couched in
money damages,** the Appellate Division
characterized her application as requiring the review of an administrative agency's determination. In that
regard, the Appellate Division noted that the money damages that the retiree
sought were calculated by using as a base figure what she would have received as
her pension benefit had she initially selected the "Maximum" option.
The bottom line: The Appellate Division ruled that as the retiree, in essence sought judicial review and reversal of an administrative determination made by the Retirement System, the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction and it properly denied the retiree's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.
The bottom line: The Appellate Division ruled that as the retiree, in essence sought judicial review and reversal of an administrative determination made by the Retirement System, the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction and it properly denied the retiree's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.
* The retiree also sued TRS’
representative in Supreme Court, contending that the representative was
negligent regarding the her retirement options. Supreme Court dismissed this
action as it sought money damages from a state employee in connection with the
performance of her duties and, as such, could only be commenced in the Court of
Claims.
** The Appellate Division said that the relief that the retiree sought would result in her receiving “windfall, because not only would she receive the monthly pension benefit under the Maximum option, but she still would have a lump sum available to her beneficiaries upon her demise.”
** The Appellate Division said that the relief that the retiree sought would result in her receiving “windfall, because not only would she receive the monthly pension benefit under the Maximum option, but she still would have a lump sum available to her beneficiaries upon her demise.”
