You are here: / / INCREASES IN PAY TO PORT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, AIMED AT RETAINING...
,

INCREASES IN PAY TO PORT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, AIMED AT RETAINING THOSE EMPLOYEES IN THE WAKE OF THE 9-11 ATTACKS, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SALARY IN THE CALCULATION OF THOSE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined certain increases in pay to executive employees of the Port Authority, aimed at retaining those employees in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, should not be treated as salary in the calculation of those employees’ retirement benefits. ” … Retirement and Social Security Law § 431 provides that “[i]n any retirement or pension plan to which the state or municipality thereof contributes, the salary base for the computation of retirement benefits shall in no event include . . . any additional compensation paid in anticipation of retirement” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 431 [3] [emphasis added]):”

… [W]e must … ask whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Comptroller’s determination that the Port Authority’s compensation adjustment program constituted “additional compensation paid in anticipation of retirement” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 431 [3]). Under this standard, where substantial evidence exists to support the administrative agency’s determination, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if there is evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … . In order to determine whether the purpose of the compensation was “to circumvent the provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law § 431,” courts ” must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it’ ” … .

Here, the record contains substantial evidence supporting the Comptroller’s determination that the Port Authority provided the compensation adjustments to artificially increase the executive employees’ final average salaries so that, upon retirement, they would receive pension increases roughly equivalent to those they would have received under the retirement incentive program. Indeed, the letter agreements signed by petitioner employees directly referred to a program “designed to provide a limited number of staff members with a parity’ benefit” to make their “pension calculation[s] . . . roughly equivalent to the calculation[s] if [they] had been eligible to retire with the incentive.” Plainly, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the compensation, by design, was made in anticipation of petitioner employees’ retirement within the meaning of the statute. Matter of Bohlen v DiNapoli, 2020 NY Slip Op 00997, CtApp 2-13-20

 

You might also like
“EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ARE TERMINABLE AT WILL; A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO MAKE AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE TERMINABLE FOR CAUSE IS UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED.
THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THREE JUDGES DISSENTED (CT APP).
IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY CONCEDED GUILT AND URGED JURY NULLIFICATION ON THE BURGLARY CHARGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BREAK-IN AND THE STOLEN ITEMS WERE NOT WORTH MUCH, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT DEFENDANT RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (CT APP).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPANELED AN ANONYMOUS JURY (CT APP).
STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF GOING-PRIVATE MERGERS ANNOUNCED; SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE GOING-PRIVATE MERGER DISMISSED.
POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER THE CAR CROSSED THE FOG LINE WITH A BLINKER ON AND THEN MOVED BACK INTO THE LANE, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST AFFIRMED (CT APP).
DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE DRIVEN BY THE PATIENT.

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

DEFENDANT MAY NOT APPEAL OR COLLATERALLY ATTACK AN “ILLEGALLY LENIENT”... THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO...