Case ID: misc2d_96/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold J. McLaughlin, Respondent, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    June 28, 1978
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (L. Kevin Sheridan and Renee Modry of counsel), for appellant. Harold J. McLaughlin, respondent pro se.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for further proceedings.

The defendant correctly took into account, when computing plaintiff’s pension, the withdrawal of funds made by plaintiff from the pension fund. Although it appears that such withdrawal was made with the consent of the Board of Estimate and the Mayor, the defendant is not estopped from subtracting the actuarial equivalent of the deficiency caused thereby from the amount due plaintiff (see 21 NY Jur, Estoppel, Ratification and Waiver, § 83). However, as noted by this court on the prior appeal (96 Misc 2d 56), the delay in making payment to plaintiff was unreasonable in the absence of any explanation therefor. Consequently, the matter must be remanded to the court below for a determination of interest due for the period of unreasonable delay (see Post v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 41 AD2d 606).

Concur: Buschmann, P. J., and Mangano, J.; Kirsch, J., taking no part.