You are here: / / New York City’s Decision Not to Apply Increased Take Home Pay Benefit t...

New York City’s Decision Not to Apply Increased Take Home Pay Benefit to Police Officers and Firefighters Struck Down

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined that the “City of New York’s decision to not apply an increased-take-home-pay (ITHP) benefit to police officers and firefighters placed into Tier III of the retirement system after July 1, 2009, and to continue deducting 3% of their wages towards their retirement benefits, violates Retirement and Social Security Law (RSSL) [section] 440(b)” and supports a cause of action for “common-law conversion of the deducted wages.”  Lynch v City of New York, 2013 Slip Op 03581, 1st Dept, 5-16-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS FELL FROM A LIFT TRUCK WHICH WAS STRUCK BY A BUS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS CREATED OR EXACERBATED THE DANGEROUS ICY CONDITION.
THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT DUPLICATIVE; THEREFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS’ FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST SUMMONS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE SECOND (FIRST DEPT).
No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest
ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Teachers’ and School Administrators’ Grievances Re Staff Cuts Stemming from... Sentence for Possession of Marijuana Deemed Unduly Harsh