Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111109_0000904.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-28 07:05:47
Document Index: 68460301

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1406', '§ 641', '§ 552', '§ 6511', '§ 1001', '§ 1027', '§ 1348']

| Stephanie Zito v. New York City Office of Payroll Administration
Stephanie Zito v. New York City Office of Payroll Administration
STEPHANIE ZITO,PLAINTIFFv.NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, COMPTROLLER OF NEW YORK CITY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON,DEFENDANTS.
In this case, pro se plaintiff Stephanie Zito, a former teacher for the City of New York and other New York State school districts, sues defendants New York City Office of Payroll Administration, New York City Department of Education, former New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. (collectively the "City defendants), and United Federation of Teachers ("UFT"). The lawsuit arises from plaintiff's failure to obtain a refund of certain Social Security payroll taxes ("FICA").
Plaintiff sued in the Northern District of New York. In April 2011, Judge McAvoy transferred the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The City defendants and UFT move to dismiss the case under Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In addition, plaintiff moves to compel discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, and the City defendants have cross-moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to stay discovery.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The parties' discovery motions are denied as moot.
Plaintiff's right to a FICA refund arose from the New York Court of Appeals decision in Doctors Council v New York City Employees' Retirement System, 529 N.Y.S.2d 732 (N.Y. 1988), which held that part-time city employees were entitled to membership in the City retirement system by virtue of the plain language of the law establishing it. After the decision, the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service determined that part-time city employees who became eligible for pensions under the decision should not have paid FICA taxes for the period between Jan. 1, 1986 and July 1, 1991. As a result, plaintiff stood to receive a refund of those taxes in the amount of $8395.07.
To receive her refund, plaintiff needed to sign a Claim Authorization allowing the City to pursue the matter on her behalf. Plaintiff, however, did not receive the Authorization, because she moved to Davenport, New York in 1992, and the Authorization was allegedly mailed to her former address in Staten Island in 1994, 1997, and 1998. Plaintiff learned of the Doctors Councilrefund program in October 2007, when she requested a summary of her Social Security earnings and noticed that the summary did not include her earnings from her part-time teaching in 1987-1991.
Plaintiff has since struggled to no avail to recover her refund. The City Office of Payroll Administration rebuffed plaintiff's demand for the money, citing their repeated mailings to her Staten Island address and the end of the Doctors Council refund program with the IRS. On March 23, 2009, plaintiff submitted a claim to the IRS for a refund, but on July 14, 2009 her claim was denied as untimely. In addition, plaintiff alleges that the Social Security Administration has deducted the wages from the years in question from plaintiff's Social Security covered earnings, reducing her benefits.
Thus plaintiff paid federal FICA taxes she was not obligated to pay and has not been able to obtain a refund from the IRS or the Social Security Administration. However, in this action plaintiff has sued neither the IRS nor the Social Security Administration. Rather, she brings claims against City defendants and UFT, claiming that it was their fault that her refund was not obtained.
As already indicated, plaintiff claims that City defendants failed to send the claim authorization to the appropriate address. She claims UFT failed to apprise City defendants of plaintiff's appropriate address in the course of its efforts to assist members in claiming their FICA refunds. She claims that defendants knew or should have known her correct address, as evidenced by correspondence between plaintiff and the Board of Education on other matters in the intervening years.
Although plaintiff's action is not against any federal defendant, she claims that City defendants and UFT are liable under various federal statutes.
More specifically, plaintiff claims that defendants, by failing to undertake more diligent efforts to locate her and thwarting her recent efforts to claim her refund, have converted United States property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and denied her access to public agency records in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552. She also alleges defendants violated 26 U.S.C. § 6511, which is part of the federal statutory scheme dealing with private rights of action against the United States for tax refunds.
Furthermore, in her response to defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiff alleges fraud concerning a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, knowing false statements in a document required by ERISA in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1027, and securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348.
Plaintiff also asserts a claim under New York State law. She alleges these state entities converted New York State property in ...