From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Davidson v. St. L. Emp. Retire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 1992
185 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

July 16, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.


When Sarah Henry filed an application for membership in respondent New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter the System) in April 1972, she designated petitioner, her daughter, as the primary beneficiary of her ordinary death benefits. In December 1979, having changed State agencies, Sarah Henry, now Sarah Cadwell, filed another application, this time naming her husband (respondent Henry Cadwell) and two grandchildren (petitioner's niece and nephew, respondents Olivene Adams and Michael Adams) as primary beneficiaries with petitioner as the contingent beneficiary. This designation, however, was rejected by the System because the contingent beneficiary's address was incomplete and, despite instructions to do so, Sarah Cadwell never returned a new complete form to the System. As a consequence, the annual statements she received from the System thereafter named petitioner as her primary beneficiary.

Following Sarah Cadwell's death in February 1990, the System reviewed her membership file and determined that the December 1979 application was indeed proper, making her primary beneficiaries her husband (Henry Cadwell) and her infant grandchildren (Olivene Adams and Michael Adams). A hearing and redetermination request made by petitioner resulted in a finding affirming the System's decision. When petitioner commenced the instant proceeding against the System, Supreme Court, upon the System's motion, directed her to add Henry Cadwell, Olivene Adams and Michael Adams as parties and to cause a guardian ad litem to be appointed for the grandchildren. The matter was subsequently transferred to this court for review.

The sole issue is whether the System is empowered to recognize the 1979 designation of the primary beneficiaries which it had previously rejected as incomplete; we find that it is. Prior to Sarah Cadwell's death, the December 1979 designations, as dictated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 60 (c), were written, duly acknowledged and filed with the Comptroller (see, Matter of Robillard v. Levitt, 44 A.D.2d 611, 612); neither that statute nor the applicable Comptroller's regulation ( 2 NYCRR 341.2) requires that the beneficiaries' addresses be included on the form (see, Matter of Jacobelli v. Regan, 131 A.D.2d 166, 169). There is, therefore, substantial evidence that the System erred in rejecting the 1979 designations for lack of a city, state and zip code in the contingent beneficiary blank. That this error was not discovered until after Sarah Cadwell's death does not, however, relieve the Comptroller of the obligation to rectify it upon discovery (see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 111 [b]; Matter of Boudreau v. Levitt, 67 A.D.2d 1053, 1054, lv denied 47 N.Y.2d 706; see also, Matter of Prouse v. Misarti, 115 A.D.2d 867, 868-869). And Sarah Cadwell's apparently thwarted expectation that petitioner would be her primary beneficiary, although clearly unfortunate, is not controlling for the System is not estopped by its administrative employees' mistakes (see, Matter of Boudreau v. Levitt, supra; Matter of Newcomb v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 43 A.D.2d 353, 356, affd on opn below 36 N.Y.2d 953; see also, Matter of Brosnahan v. New York State Employees' Retirement Sys., 174 A.D.2d 954, 955, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858).

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Davidson v. St. L. Emp. Retire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 1992
185 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Davidson v. St. L. Emp. Retire

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GWENDOLYN DAVIDSON, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE AND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 16, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Matter of Schwind v. McCall

ent and Social Security Law § 74 [b]) and such determination will be upheld if supported by substantial…

Matter of Graham v. N.Y. St. Police Fire

Supreme Court properly granted respondents' motion to dismiss the proceeding on the basis of petitioner's…