The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1903-23
PAUL SUOZZO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
TEACHERS' PENSION AND
ANNUITY FUND,
Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted April 7, 2025 – Decided May 21, 2025
Before Judges Gummer and Jablonski.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Teachers'
Pension and Annuity Fund, Department of the
Treasury, Agency Docket No. TPAF No. xx1437.
Paul Suozzo, appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Payal Y. Ved, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Paul Suozzo appeals from a final administrative determination
issued by respondent Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension and Annuity
Fund (TPAF), affirming the Board's prior decision denying his request for a
retroactive retirement date. The Board denied petitioner's request because under
the applicable regulation, a TPAF member's retirement application becomes
effective after the receipt of the application and petitioner had submitted the
application years after his subsequently-requested retroactive date. Because the
Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, nor unsupported
by the law or the facts in the record, we affirm.
I.
Petitioner was enrolled in the TPAF on September 1, 1993. According to
petitioner, he stopped teaching in June 2001. Petitioner's last pension
contribution was on June 30, 2001. Petitioner turned sixty years old on April
26, 2019.
In a July 2, 2018 letter, the New Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits
informed petitioner he was eligible to receive a deferred retirement benefit
beginning the first of the month after he turned sixty years old. The Division
explained in the letter that the "earliest effective date of [petitioner's] retirement
application w[ould] be the first of the month following the birthday that
A-1903-23
2
[petitioner] turn[ed sixty] provided your [Member Benefit Online System
(MBOS)] application [wa]s filed with the Division . . . prior to that date."
Petitioner denies ever seeing the letter but concedes the address on the letter was
his address.
On February 16, 2023, petitioner contacted the Division's Office of Client
Services by telephone to ask about his pension benefits. According to petitioner,
he learned during that call he had been eligible for a pension benefit as of May
1, 2019, the first of the month following his sixtieth birthday.
On February 24, 2023, petitioner submitted an Application for Retirement
Allowance, listing a retirement date of March 1, 2023, and identifying his
"Retirement Type" as "[d]eferred." In an April 13, 2023 letter, the Division
advised petitioner the Board had approved his application, with a March 1, 2023
effective date.
In a May 12, 2023 letter, petitioner advised the Division he wanted "to
appeal the decision to issue [his] pension effective February 2023" and requested
his claim be "activate[d] . . . to [his] original eligibility date of May 2019." In
the letter, petitioner claimed "the department did not do a fair and reasonable
job of notifying [him] of [his] eligibility," faulting the "department" for sending
the July 2, 2018 letter by regular mail instead of by certified mail.
A-1903-23
3
In a May 19, 2023 letter, the Division denied petitioner's request. The
Division explained that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:2-6.1, a retirement application
must be "filed with the Division before the requested date of retirement" and
that the application "becomes effective on the first of the month following
receipt of application unless a future date is requested." The Division noted
petitioner had filed his application for retirement benefits on February 24, 2023,
for a deferred retirement effective March 1, 2023.
In a July 27, 2023 letter to the Board, petitioner appealed the denial of his
request. He again contended "a general delivery letter was not an adequate way
to notify a beneficiary of their benefits." Petitioner requested the Board "re-
evaluate [his] case, taking into account the lack of proper notification to ensure
that beneficiaries are aware of their eligibility and can receive their rightful
benefits."
In a September 8, 2023 letter, the Board denied petitioner's request. The
Board explained, "[p]ursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:66-43 and N.J.A.C. 17:3-6.1, to
obtain a retirement date of May 1, 2019, you had to have filed a retirement
application with the Division prior to that date" and because petitioner had not
done that, his effective date of retirement remained March 1, 2023, as previously
A-1903-23
4
approved by the Board. In a November 17, 2023 letter, petitioner appealed the
Board's decision and asked for a hearing with the Office of Administrative Law.
In a January 12, 2024 final administrative determination, the Board
affirmed its prior decision denying petitioner's request for a retroactive
retirement date. The Board again relied on N.J.S.A. 18A:66-43 and N.J.A.C.
17:3-6.1. The Board explained petitioner "became eligible to begin receiving a
retirement benefit as of May 1, 2019, the first month after [he] turned [sixty]
years of age" and that to receive a retirement benefit effective May 1, 2019, he
had to file his application for retirement benefits before that date. The Board
found that because petitioner did not file his application until 2023, he was not
eligible to receive benefits retroactive to May 1, 2019. The Board considered
but rejected petitioner's assertion the Division should have sent the July 2, 2018
letter by certified mail. Finding the "matter d[id] not entail any disputed
questions of fact," the Board denied his request for a hearing.
On appeal, petitioner argues the process and decision made by the Board
was unjust, incorrect, and unsupported by law and the facts in the record. Based
on the applicable law and standard of review and the undisputed facts in the
record, we affirm.
A-1903-23
5
II.
Our role in reviewing an administrative agency's decision is limited.
Zimmerman v. Diviney, 477 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2023). We "recognize
that state agencies possess expertise and knowledge in their particular fields."
Capuchino v. Bd. of Trs., Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 475 N.J. Super.
405, 411 (App. Div. 2023) (quoting Caminiti v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's
Ret. Sys., 431 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2013)). Consequently, we review a
quasi-judicial agency decision under a deferential standard of review and will
affirm the decision unless "there is a clear showing [the decision] is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Ibid.
(alteration in original) (quoting S.L.W. v. N.J. Div. of Pension & Benefits, 238
N.J. 385, 393 (2019)).
In determining whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable, we consider "(1) whether the agency's decision conforms with
relevant law; (2) whether the decision is supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record; and (3) whether, in applying the law to the facts, the
administrative agency clearly erred in reaching its conclusion." Conley v. N.J.
Dep't of Corr., 452 N.J. Super. 605, 613 (App. Div. 2018). "The burden of
proving that an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable is on the
A-1903-23
6
challenger." Parsells v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Somerville, 472 N.J. Super.
369, 376 (App. Div. 2022).
We are not bound by an agency's statutory interpretation or other legal
determinations. Lapsley v. Twp. of Sparta, 249 N.J. 427, 434 (2022).
Nevertheless, we accord deference to statutory interpretation by the agency
charged with enforcing the statute because of the agency's experience and
specialized knowledge. Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 237
N.J. 465, 475-76 (2019). "Such deference has been specifically extended to state
agencies that administer pension statutes." Tasca v. Bd. of Trs., Police and
Firemen's Ret. Sys., 458 N.J. Super. 47, 55 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting Piatt v.
Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 443 N.J. Super. 80, 99 (App. Div. 2015)). The
Legislature vested "the general responsibility for the proper operation" of the
TPAF in the Board. N.J.S.A. 18A:66-56.
"The Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund Law, N.J.S.A. 18A:66-1 to -93
. . . , 'provides a comprehensive, uniform state-wide plan for the payment of
retirement benefits to'" TPAF members. Caucino, 475 N.J. Super. at 413
(quoting Fair Lawn Educ. Ass'n v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Educ., 161 N.J. Super. 67,
73 (App. Div. 1978)). N.J.S.A. 18A:66-43 establishes the eligibility for
retirement benefits for TPAF members:
A-1903-23
7
Retirement for service shall be as follows: (a) A person
who is a member before [November 1, 2008] and has
attained 60 years of age may retire on a service
retirement allowance by filing with the retirement
system a written application, duly attested, stating at
which time subsequent to the execution and filing
thereof he desires to be retired. The board of trustees
shall retire him at the time specified or at such other
time within [one] month after the date so specified as
the board finds advisable.
[(Emphasis added).]
N.J.A.C. 17:3-6.1(a) also requires that, to receive retirement benefits, a TPAF
member must complete and submit an online application form "on or before the
requested date of retirement." A member's retirement application becomes
effective on the first of the month following receipt of the application "unless a
future date is requested." N.J.A.C. 17:3-6.1(a) (emphasis added). The
applicable statutory and regulatory law supports the Board's determination.
The relevant facts are not disputed and also support the Board's
determination. Petitioner applied for retirement benefits on February 24, 2023.
Thus, his retirement application became effective on March 1, 2023. N.J.A.C.
17:3-6.1(a). Petitioner did not submit an application for retirement benefits in
2019 when he could have. Because petitioner did not have an application on file
by May 1, 2019, the Board properly denied his request to retroactively change
his retirement date from March 1, 2023, to May 1, 2019.
A-1903-23
8
We recognize "pension statutes 'should be liberally construed and
administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited.'" Francois v. Bd.
of Trs., 415 N.J. Super. 335, 349 (App. Div. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Klumb v. Bd. of Educ. of Manalapan-Englishtown Reg'l High
Sch. Dist., 199 N.J. 14, 34 (2009)). However, "an employee has only such rights
and benefits as are based upon and within the scope of the provisions of the
statute." Ibid. (quoting Casale v. Pension Comm'n of the Emps.' Ret. Sys., 78
N.J. Super. 38, 40 (Law Div. 1963)). Under the applicable statute and
regulation, petitioner was entitled to the retroactive benefits he now seeks only
if he timely applied for them. But he didn't.
Petitioner faults the Division for not properly notifying him. Petitioner
would impose on the Division notice requirements that do not exist under the
law. The Legislature and the Division have created notice requirements
elsewhere in TPAF Act and related regulations. See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 17:3-6.9
(requiring the Division to give notice to a member and a member's employer
regarding accidental disability retirement); see also N.J.S.A. 18A:66-47.1
(requiring the Division to give notice "by certified mail" to a member's spouse
if the member identifies the spouse in a written election to make retirement
benefits payable only during the lifetime of the employee). The Legislature
A-1903-23
9
could have imposed similar requirements under these circumstances, but it
didn't. No statute or regulation required the Division to send the July 2, 2018
letter to petitioner by certified mail.
The information petitioner contends he needed to know in order to apply
for retirement benefits that would have been effective as of May 1, 2019, was
set forth in the July 2, 2018 letter. Petitioner does not dispute the letter was
correctly addressed to him. "There is 'a presumption that mail properly
addressed, stamped, and posted was received by the party to whom it was
addressed.'" U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Curcio, 444 N.J. Super. 94, 112 (App. Div.
2016) (quoting SSI Med. Servs. v. HHS, Div. of Med. Assistance & Health
Servs., 146 N.J. 614, 621 (1996)). Nothing in the record suggests the letter was
returned to the Division.
Because petitioner has not demonstrated the Board acted arbitrarily,
capriciously, or unreasonably in affirming its decision denying his request to
change his retirement date retroactively from March 1, 2023, to May 1, 2019,
we affirm.
Affirmed.
A-1903-23
10