Poggi v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Peter R.. Castellano v. Board Of Trustees Of The Police Officers' Variable Supplements Fund (2d Cir. 1991)
- Castellano v. Board of Trustees of the Police Officers' Variable Supplements Fund (2d Cir. 1991)
- Gagliardo v. Dinkins (N.Y. 1996)
- Municipality of Anchorage v. Gallion (Alaska 1997)
- Borrelli v. Secretary of Treasury (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
- DeLuca v. DeLuca (N.Y. 2001)
- DeLuca v. DeLuca (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Torriente v. Torriente (New York Supreme Court 2000)
- Castellano v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36 (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1996)
- Ballentine v. Koch (N.Y. 1996)
- Gagliardo v. Dinkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Ballentine v. Koch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Averys v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Bergamine v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Duffy v. Dinkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Castellano v. Board of Trustees of the Police Officer's Variable Supplements Fund (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
- Crown v. Trustees of the Patrolmen's Variable Supplements Fund (District Court, S.D. New York 1987)
- Kamensky v. Barclay (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 of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Sullivan. We note that we do not reach the question whether the variable supplements funds constitute a pension or retirement benefit. That question is unnecessary to the determination of the issues before us: whether plaintiffs’ pension contract rights or their equal protection rights have been impaired. (See also, Matter of Lippman v Board of Educ., 66 NY2d 313.)
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.