Balash v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
| Citation | 34 N.Y.2d 654,355 N.Y.S.2d 577,311 N.E.2d 649 |
| Parties | , 311 N.E.2d 649 In the Matter of John BALASH, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1974 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Samuel Resnicoff, New York City, for appellant.
Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Bernard Burstein and Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The procedures by which petitioner was 'certified' a 'paranoid' personality and involuntarily retired from his position with the New York City Housing Authority with ordinary disability benefits did not meet the minimum requirements of due process. The only written notice given petitioner was a letter of February 3, 1972, from the respondent Retirement System stating that his employer had applied for his retirement 'on account of Ordinary Disability' and requesting his attendance at an 'interview' on February 10, 1972, before the medical panel. He was given no written notice of any reason for the proposed retirement or of any opportunity to present medical or other relevant evidence in his favor to either the medical panel or the Board of Trustees of the respondent Retirement System. During the proceedings, petitioner neither received nor was shown a copy of any of the medical reports or other material which formed the basis of the medical panel's certification that he was 'paranoid'. After petitioner was retired, he was given no written statement of the reasons for the action. Petitioner should have been advised of the charges against him and the evidence on which they were based, afforded meaningful opportunity to present documentary or other evidence in his favor at least to the Board of Trustees, and advised of the reasons for their determination (Matter of Meschino v. Lowery, 31 N.Y.2d 772, 774, 338 N.Y.S.2d 625, 290 N.E.2d 825). Due process does not require that petitioner has been afforded a full-blown adversary hearing with the right to cross-examine the psychiatrists whose reports formed the basis of the medical panel's certification and the board's subsequent determination. He had, however, the right to be informed of the substance of those reports and should have been given an opportunity, at least before the Board of Trustees, to controvert the conclusions they contained (Matter of Newbrand v. City of Yonkers, 285 N.Y. 164, 179, 33 N.E.2d 75).
Accordingly, the order appealed from should be reversed and the matter remitted to Special Term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Surowitz v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM
...B3-10.0 (1971). Assuming that to be sufficient to render the NYCERS sui juris as such (cf. Balash v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 34 N.Y.2d 654, 355 N.Y.S.2d 577, 311 N.E.2d 649 (1974) (mem.) (by implication); Hessel v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 33 N.Y.2d 38......
-
Russo v. White
...609 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 2858, 61 L.Ed.2d 296 (1979); Balash v. New York City Emp. Retirement Sys., 34 N.Y.2d 654, 655-56, 355 N.Y.S.2d 577, 577, 311 N.E.2d 649, 649 (1974)). Furthermore, upon discontinuance, members of the police force who have completed fift......
-
Siletti v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYS., 75 Civ. 1364.
...indicates that the defendant barred him from "presenting documentary or other evidence in his favor." Balash v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 34 N.Y.2d 654, 355 N. Y.S.2d 577, 577, 311 N.E.2d 649, 649 (1974). Nor has the plaintiff been able to demonstrate that the written medi......
-
Newman v. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York
...should have been given an opportunity . . . to controvert the conclusions they contained." Balash v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 34 N.Y.2d 654, 355 N.Y.S.2d 577, 311 N.E.2d 649 (1974).5 Compensable damages are also available under § 1983 for mental or emotional distress caus......