You are here: / / REDUCTION OF PETITIONER-SCHOOL-DISTRICT EMPLOYEE’S RETIREMENT HEALTH...
, , ,

REDUCTION OF PETITIONER-SCHOOL-DISTRICT EMPLOYEE’S RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS BELOW THE LEVEL AFFORDED ACTIVE EMPLOYEES VIOLATES INSURANCE LAW 4235 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school district’s reduction of petitioner-employee’s (Perrotta’s) retirement health benefits below the level afforded active employees violated the Insurance Law:

The moratorium law [Insurance Law 4235] sets “‘a minimum baseline or “floor” for retiree health benefits'” which is “‘measured by the health insurance benefits received by active employees . . . In other words, the moratorium [law] does not permit an employer to whom the statute applies to provide retirees with lesser health insurance benefits than active employees'” … . Thus, a school district may not diminish retirees’ health insurance benefits unless it makes “a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees” … . The purpose of the moratorium law is to protect the rights of retirees who “‘are not represented in the collective bargaining process, [and] are powerless to stop unilateral depreciation or even elimination of health insurance benefits once the contract under which they retired has expired'” … .

Here, since Perrotta submitted evidence establishing that the district diminished the health insurance contribution rate for certain retirees, and the district failed to proffer evidence that it made a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions for active employees, its determination violated the moratorium law. … Supreme Court should have granted the petition and annulled the district’s determination … . Matter of Perrotta v Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 06704, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioner, a retired school district employee, successfully contested the reduction of her retirement health benefits below the level afforded active employees as a violation of Insurance Law 4235.

 

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE INSTANT CONVICTION WAS FOR A CLASS A FELONY, SUPREME COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INDICATED SHE DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL IN HER DEPOSITION, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET FROM TRACKED IN SNOW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER’S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE.
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED ON APPEAL, DETERMINING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; WHEN SUPREME COURT WROTE A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IT IMPROPERLY ADDED A SENTENCE WHICH WAS NOT IN THE DECISION; A JUDGMENT BASED UPON AN APPELLATE DECISION MUST STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE DECISION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

​ THE DISCHARGED LAW FIRM HANDLED THE PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR TWO YEARS;... THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT IDENTIFY THE RECORDS...