O'Brien v. N.Y. Teachers' Ret. Sys.

• Decision Date: 04 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2340–10.,2340–10.
• Citation: 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51398,28 Misc.3d 1219,957 N.Y.S.2d 637
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Florence O'BRIEN, Petitioner, for a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Ordering the re-calculation of Retirement Benefits v. NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and New York State Teachers' Retirement System Retirement Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

28 Misc.3d 1219
957 N.Y.S.2d 637
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51398

In the Matter of the Application of Florence O'BRIEN, Petitioner, for a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules Ordering the re-calculation of Retirement Benefits
v.
NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and New York State Teachers' Retirement System Retirement Board, Respondent.

No. 2340–10.

Supreme Court, Albany County, New York.

Aug. 4, 2010.

Brad A. Stuhler, Esq., Hauppauge, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Aaron M. Baldwin, Esq., of counsel, Albany, Attorneys for Respondents.

HENRY F. ZWACK, J.

In this CPLR Article 78 proceeding, petitioner argues that respondent improperly calculated her final average salary and argues that its determination is arbitrary and capricious. Respondent opposes the petition.

Petitioner argues that a yearly stipend she received for school years 2006–07, 2007–08 and 2008–09 was improperly not included in her final average salary. During those school years petitioner received $4,000.00, $5,000.00 and $6,000.00 respectively as provided pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement provided for the stipends under what was called a “24–12” plan. Petitioner argues that the stipends were in exchange for her work developing and teaching summer school programs.

Respondent opposes the petition, arguing that the stipends were appropriately excluded from petitioner's final average salary. Respondent notes that the “24–12” plan allows a teacher to receive his or her salary in 24 payments over 12 months, as opposed to only over the course of the academic year. The plan requires participating teachers to “complete a total of 8 hours of work during each July and August.” Respondent argues that the stipend payments are not properly considered regular salary and that petitioner's work through the summers was not reported pursuant to the summer school salary schedule. Respondent agrees with petitioner that summer school compensation constitutes regular salary, but that the stipends at issue in the present case are separate and distinct from summer school compensation.

It is well established that when a court is reviewing an administrative determination, it “may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency making the determination but must determine whether the agency's decision has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious” (Plante v. New York State Dept. of...