Kranker v. Levitt
Abraham Kranker, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The 1957 decision of the Comptroller—in accordance with section 23.1 of the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Civil Service (4 NYCRR 23.1) — to include cash payments for accumulated vacation credits in determining the salary base for the computation of retirement benefits constitutes a valid contract between the State Employees’ Retirement System and its members. In addition, such payments represent compensation for services actually rendered and are, therefore, properly includable in the computation of a member’s final average salary. Accordingly, the plaintiff and all others similarly situated have acquired a vested right to the aforesaid benefit, and that benefit may not now be constitutionally impaired. This being so, it follows that subdivision 1 of section 431 of the Retirement and Social Security Law (as added by L. 1971, ch. 503), which eliminates inclusion of cash payments for accumulated vacation credits, violates section 7 of article V of our State Constitution if retroactively applied to the plaintiff and others similarly situated.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bbeitel, J. (dissenting in part).
I would modify the judgment rendered to restrict the invalidation of chapter 503 of the Laws of 1971 only to the extent that it impairs contractual rights vested prior to the enactment of the statute on June 17, 1971. That is the date the statute became law by approval of the Governor in accordance with bill section 20 which for relevant purposes provided that the act would take effect immediately. After that date new entrants into the Retirement System acquired contractual rights subject to any statutes then outstanding, whether or not by the terms of the statutes they applied to current or future events. This subordinate issue is as simple *576 as that. It should not be confused by misusing the substantive language contained in the statute and treating that as ‘ ‘ effective date ’ ’ language, rather than bill section 20, which respondents would do. The April 1, 1972 date in the statute fixes as a substantive matter the date from which accumulated credits would no longer be includable in final annual salary. It is not “ the effective date ” of the statute in any sense. Since legislation is supreme unless unconstitutional, the court may not abrogate a power of ‘1 interpretation ’ ’ which patently frustrates the legislative intention. The financial impact of the difference may be trivial, the debasement of principle is not.
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Gibson concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Breitel dissents in part and votes to modify in a separate opinion in which Judge Jasen concurs.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 35 cases
View all citing references →- State Highest Courts13
- State Appellate Courts16
- State Trial Courts3
- State Specialty Courts1
- State Attorney General Opinions2
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Bookhout v. Levitt
- Washington Ass'n of County Officials v. Washington Public Employees' Retirement System Board
- Kraus v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund
- Wash. Fed'n of State Employees Council 28 v. State
- Flisock v. State, Division of Retirement & Benefits
- Subway-Surface Supervisors Ass'n v. New York City Transit Authority
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.