# Accurso v. Board of Administration

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 16, 2005 · 18 A.D.3d 653

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5685481

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Vincent Accurso v. Board of Administration of Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** May 16, 2005
- **Citations:** 18 A.D.3d 653; 795 N.Y.S.2d 331; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5336
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5685481

## Opinion text

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Administration of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan, dated January 27, 2003, which denied the petitioners’ applications for reinstatement to Tier I membership in the New York City Employees Retirement System, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J), dated December 1, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the determination of *654 the Board of Administration of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan, denying their applications for reinstatement to Tier I membership in the New York City Employees Retirement System, by not affording them service credit for prior employment with a different public employer, was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 [1974]; Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322 [1967]; Matter of Valle v Buscemi, 233 AD2d 334 [1996]). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur. [See 1 Misc 3d 901(A) , 2003 NY Slip Op 51456(U) (2003).]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5685481. Public record. Not legal advice.