You are here: / / TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID...

TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined tier 3 police officers were not entitled to service credit for periods of unpaid child care leave:

In recognizing that Administrative Code § 13-107(k) did not apply to tier 3 correction officers and that RSSL [Retirement and Social Security Law] § 513 had to be amended to define a service credit for unpaid child care leave, the legislature also evinced its understanding that extending the benefit to tier 3 police officers would require another amendment to RSSL § 513. However, it declined to extend the benefit to tier 3 police officers.

In 2012, the legislature amended Administrative Code § 13-218(h), not to make the unpaid child care leave service credit benefit available to tier 3 police officers but “to make new NYC Tier 3 uniformed correction members ineligible to obtain service credit for child care leave in order to equate their benefits with Tier 3 police/fire benefits” … . This legislation is consistent with the legislative intent in the creation of tier 3, “a comprehensive retirement program designed to provid[e] uniform benefits for all public employees and eliminat[e] the costly special treatment of selected groups . . . inherent in the previous program” … . Lynch v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04826, First Dept 6-28-18

​RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/[POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD CARE LEAVE (POLICE OFFICERS, TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE ORDER IMPLEMENTING THE PLAINTIFFS’ PLAN FOR THE SEALING OF NYPD’S RECORDS OF FAVORABLY TERMINATED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTED TO A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITHOUT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN A TENNESSEE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE TRANSFERRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD DIVEST DEFENDANT OF STANDING; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AND THE TIME FOR SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT PASSED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT RETAINED AN INTEREST IN DEFENDING AGAINST A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO ARGUE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).
BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MEDICAL CENTER IS LIABLE UNDER THE OSTENSIBLE AGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST 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

NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE... CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT...