Itzenplitz v. McCall
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Gonzalez v. New York State & Local Retirement Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Muccia v. DiNapoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- DeLuca v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- McMorrow v. Hevesi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for additional service credits in the calculation of her retirement benefits.
Pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 446 (b), a member of the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System may be entitled to prior service credit for service rendered “during which employment he became a member of the retirement system.” A member is deemed to have rendered creditable service during which employment he or she became a member if (1) he or she received compensation for each day in the period or (2) he or she worked for a minimum of 1,000 hours during each State fiscal year in the period (see, 2 NYCRR 318.2 [a]). Relying on the 1,000-hour requirement and the undisputed evidence of 870.32 hours of paid service for Erie County in the 1970-1971 fiscal year, petitioner contends that, in denying her application for prior service credit, respondent Comptroller erred in failing to credit her for an additional 166.67 hours of paid service as a member of the Town of West Seneca Planning Board in Erie County.
“It is well settled that the Comptroller is charged with the duty of determining service credits for retirement purposes * * * and his determination in this regard will be upheld if rational and supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of
Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Petitioner does not claim that she met the alternative requirement of receipt of compensation for each day in the period.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.