Matter of Galanthay v. New York State Teachers'ret. Sys.
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Barry v. University of Alaska (Alaska 2004)
- Matter of Zamostina v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Jensen-Dooling v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Blais v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of Lake v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Ly v. New York City Employees Retirement Sys. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Bohlen v. DiNapoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Awe v. D'Alessandro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Koenig v. DiNapoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Holdman v. Office of Court Administration (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Holdman v. Office of Court Administration (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Evans v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Evans v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Palandra v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Goldstein v. Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Scheurer v. New York City Employees' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Barbera v. New York City Employees Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Barrett v. Messer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Abbatiello v. Regan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Limongelli v. New York State Employees' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Brosnahan v. New York State Employees' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Ginocchio v. New York State Employees' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Doctors Council v. New York City Employees' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Distelman v. Regan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Baker v. Regan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Con. G. Cholakis at Special Term.
Under section 525 of the Education Law the retirement board is mandated to correct any errors in the computation of benefit entitlement on the part of the members of the system. Thus, while the preliminary evaluation of petitioner’s pension rights may have indicated sufficient service credit to entitle her to a retirement benefit, the board, on receipt of additional information indicating insufficient service credit for a pension, was obligated to correct the error and seek repayment of the funds already received (Matter of Newcomb v New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, 43 AD2d 353, affd 36 NY2d 953).
The retirement system’s statutory responsibility, supported by broad public policy considerations, requires that it take all necessary steps to insure the financial integrity of the pension fund. That duty could not have been properly discharged without requiring the petitioner to serve the minimum period of time necessary to entitle her to a pension. For this reason the courts below were correct in their holding that the original erroneous calculations could not be the basis for an estoppel. "The doctrine of estoppel will not reach so far as to hold an individual eligible for vested retirement where by statute, he clearly does not qualify for such eligibility” (Mat *987 ter of Boudreau v Levitt, 67 AD2d 1053, 1054, mot for lv to app den 47 NY2d 706).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.