Garrigan v. Incorporated Village of Malverne
| Decision Date | 08 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2003-10670. |
| Citation | 786 N.Y.S.2d 525,12 A.D.3d 400,2004 NY Slip Op 08063 |
| Parties | RAYMOND GARRIGAN, Respondent, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MALVERNE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In response to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he had a contract with the defendant Incorporated Village of Malverne to compensate him for certain accumulated but unused benefits upon his retirement from his position as Chief of Police. The defendants contend that there was neither express statutory authority nor a contract between the Village and the plaintiff providing for such payments, and, therefore, he may not be compensated for accumulated but unused benefits upon termination (see NY Const, art VIII, § 1; Matter of Antonopoulou v Beame, 32 NY2d 126 [1973]; Matter of Rubinstein v Simpson, 109 AD2d 885 [1985]; Coates v City of New York, 49 AD2d 565 [1975]). In response, the plaintiff contends that he had an agreement with the Village to receive the benefits outlined in the Police Benevolent Association contract throughout his tenure as Chief of Police, as well as during his time as a regular member of the police force. That contract provided for payment for accumulated but unused benefits upon retirement, including sick leave, vacation time, and terminal leave. The plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether reliance on the defendants' promises prevented him from using his accumulated vacation time before reaching the mandatory age of retirement, entitling him to compensation therefor (see Gendalia v Gioffre, 191 AD2d 476 [1993]; Clift v City of Syracuse, 45 AD2d 596 [1974]).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citadel Estates, LLC v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...that a village failed to compensate a plaintiff is properly brought as a contract action (see e.g. Garrigan v. Incorporated Vill. of Malverne, 12 A.D.3d 400, 786 N.Y.S.2d 525 [2004] ). Nonetheless, the court finds that the claims raised by the landlords herein must be adjudicated in an Arti......
-
Weslowski v. Zugibe
...of an alleged promise, irrespective of whether the plaintiff's employment was wrongfully terminated (see Garrigan v. Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 12 A.D.3d 400, 786 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; Matter of Steve's Star Serv. v. County of Rockland, 278 A.D.2d 498, 499, 718 N.Y.S.2d 72 ). Consequently, the......
-
Hohenberger v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist.
...129[A], 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51894[U], 2015 WL 9321215 [App.Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2015]; Garrigan v. Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 12 A.D.3d 400, 401, 786 N.Y.S.2d 525 [2004] ; Gendalia v. Gioffre, 191 A.D.2d 476, 594 N.Y.S.2d 322 [1993] ), and, thus, we conclude that the judg......
-
Garrigan v. Incorporated Village of Malverne
...[2000]). The court properly declined to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract (see Garrigan v Incorporated Vil. of Malverne, 12 AD3d 400 [2004] [decided The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., ......