Alt v. Long Island R. Co.

Decision Date21 March 1975
Citation365 N.Y.S.2d 480,81 Misc.2d 99
Partiesv. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court
MEMORANDUM

PAUL J. WIDLITZ, Justice.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiffs seek determinations of their rights under a Company pension plan. The parties have agreed on a statement of facts and have submitted the controversy for determination (CPLR 3222). The agreed facts establish each plaintiff as a member of the Long Island Rail Road Plan for Supplemental Pension (hereinafter called Supplemental Plan) as of July 1, 1971. Each plaintiff had made contributions pursuant to that plan, and each plaintiff under the terms of the plan had a vested right to a pension. The Long Island Rail Road (hereinafter called LIRR) was superseded by the defendant, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter called MTA), and thereafter, on June 27, 1970, the MTA and nineteen separate collective bargaining unions entered into and negotiated a new pension plan called the Long Island Rail Road Company Pension Plan (hereinafter called New Plan). Under this plan, employees made no contributions, and all employees of the railroad were entitled to become members. Thus the Supplemental Plan, which had 2,000 employees in it, was superseded by the New Plan with some 7,000 employees eligible to participate.

Those members whose pension rights had not vested under the Supplemental Plan received, without option, their gross contributions plus 6% Interest or 106% Of the total amount contributed. Those employees whose rights had vested under the Supplemental Plan were given the option of reimbursement of the amount of their contributions plus 6% Interest and transfer to the New Plan or they could remain eligible for pensions under the terms of the Supplemental Plan and continue making the required contributions until they reached retirement age. The amount of each respective pension still continued dependent upon earnings, age, and years of service.

The funds required to meet the obligations of the pensions were forthcoming by way of a contribution by each member together with the Company's contributions which were determined by Article XI of the Supplemental Plan which reads as follows 'The Company shall contribute such amounts as may be determined by the Managers to be actuarially necessary, together with member contributions, to meet the current costs of the plan.

Money representing the accrued liability, * * * shall be provided by the Company by paying to the trustee, from time to tiem, such amounts as may be determined by the Managers to be actuarially necessary to provide pensions on account of such prior service.

To the extent member and Company contributions for current costs of the plan do not satisfy the accrued liability as determined by the Managers for service of members subsequent to the entrance of such members into the plan, money representing such liability shall be contributed by the Company.'

The Managers of the Supplemental Plan were given much latitude in keeping the plan actuarially sound, and Article XIII provided as follows:

'The Company reserves the right to modify, amend, or restrict the plan, or to discontinue it altogether, * * * and for the purpose of keeping the plan in an actuarially sound condition at all times, the exercise of such right shall include any increase or decrease as may be made by the Managers of the amounts of contributions to be paid by the employees * * * provided that the exercise of such right shall not adversely affect * * * the then actuarial value of accruing pensions, the amount of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Kolentus v. Avco Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • August 5, 1986
    ...and unambiguous they will be strictly construed; the court may not rewrite the terms of the plan. Alt v. Long Island Railroad Company, 81 Misc.2d 99, 365 N.Y.S.2d 480, 484 (Sup.Ct.1975), aff'd, 54 App.Div.2d 724, 387 N.Y.S.2d 610 (1976); see also Associated Industries, Etc. v. Murray, 80 Ap......
  • Tanuggi v. Grolier Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 7, 1979
    ...to Tanuggi shall commence. This approach is consistent with the holding of the New York Supreme Court in Alt v. Long Island Railroad Co., 81 Misc.2d 99, 365 N.Y.S.2d 480. Alt was a declaratory judgment action under New York law, where plaintiff sought determinations of their rights under a ......
  • Sochor v. International Business Machines Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 27, 1982
    ...into a pension right in such amount as shall be determined by the age, wage, and years of service of the member (Alt v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 81 Misc.2d 99, 365 N.Y.S.2d 480, affd. 54 A.D.2d 724, 387 N.Y.S.2d In the instant situation, it seems clear that the former husband enjoyed a "vested" i......
  • Crinnion v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 30, 1978
    ...v. CMP Industries, Inc., 13 N.Y.2d 217, 246 N.Y.S.2d 201, 195 N.E.2d 884, 887 (Ct.App.1963). See also, Alt v. Long Island R. R. Co., 81 Misc.2d 99, 365 N.Y.S.2d 480, 483-484 (Sup.Ct.1975), aff'd 54 A.D.2d 724, 387 N.Y.S.2d 610 (App.Div.1976). New Jersey is in accord with this view. Thus, in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT