You are here: / / TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD...
, ,

TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD THE 22 YEARS OF POLICE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the appellate division, determined tier 3 police officers may not count prior “non-police” service in computing the 22 years of service required for eligibility for retirement benefits:

… [T]ier 3 officers are eligible for retirement after 22 years of service without regard to their age … . The issue before us is whether a tier 3 police officer’s prior non-police service “qualifies to be counted as credited service pursuant to [Retirement and Social Security Law § 513]” … .

… [W]e conclude that the legislature intended tier 3 officers to receive the same service credit as their tier 2 counterparts, but restricted to the credit available prior to July 1, 1976.

Before July 1, 1976, the Administrative Code provided that a tier 2 officer would not be eligible for retirement until he or she “served in the police force for” the then-minimum period of 20 or 25 years … . This language plainly demonstrates that, prior to July 1, 1976, tier 2 officers could count only prior police service toward their retirement eligibility. Accordingly, tier 3 officers may receive retirement credit only for prior police service. Matter of Lynch v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02753, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Tier 3 NYC police officers cannot count years of non-police service toward retirement eligibility.

 

You might also like
THE STANDARD FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” IS THE SAME AS FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL” IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW’S DWI SCHEME; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER “INTOXICATION” STANDARD TO “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
THE COVID PROTOCOLS WERE IN EFFECT DURING DEFENDANT’S TRIAL; THE JURORS WERE REQUIRED TO WEAR FACE MASKS WHEN THEY WERE NOT BEING INDIVIDUALLY QUESTIONED DURING VOIR DIRE; THE INABILTY TO SEE THE JURORS’ FULL FACES DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING JURY SELECTION AND DID NOT VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
Catheter, Although Deliberately Inserted During Surgery for Temporary Monitoring Purposes, Was a “Foreign Object” Within the Meaning of CPLR 214-a—Action Brought Within One Year of the Discovery of the Catheter (22 Years after Insertion) Was Timely
ELECTION LAW 3-222 WHICH PROHIBITS DISCLOSURE OF VOTED BALLOTS FOR TWO YEARS AFTER AN ELECTION APPLIES BOTH TO PAPER BALLOTS AND ELECTRONIC BALLOTS (CT APP).
THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR A TRAFFIC-INFRACTION TRIAL; IN CONTRAST, A TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT A CRIMINAL COURT, AND MAY ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CT APP).
INSURERS MAY PROPERLY REFUSE NO-FAULT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY NONPHYSICIANS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUDULENT INTENT OR CONDUCT TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR NONPARTY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH THE NONPARTIES REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND FALSE ADVERTISING WERE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AGAINST AN INSURER PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES; PLAINTIFF, A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, ALLEGED DECEPTIVE AND FALSE MARKETING BY THE INSURER INDUCED HIM TO CHOOSE THE INSURER’S PLAN (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER SECOND BASED ON THE DEATH OF A PERSON TO WHOM DEFENDANT SOLD HEROIN; THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT EITHER THE “RECKLESS” ELEMENT OF MANSLAUGHTER SECOND OR THE “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE” ELEMENT OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (CT APP).

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

IN THESE TWO CASES, INTRUDERS ENTERED AN APARTMENT BUILDING THROUGH EXTERIOR... “EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ARE TERMINABLE AT...