holding that the plaintiff demonstrated good cause to change her retirement selection because it was the "Board's regulation, combined with its failure to provide [the plaintiff] with informati on material to her decision, that prevented [the plaintiff] from selecting" a more favorable retirement option
How later courts described this case
- holding that the plaintiff demonstrated good cause to change her retirement selection because it was the "Board's regulation, combined with its failure to provide [the plaintiff] with informati on material to her decision, that prevented [the plaintiff] from selecting" a more favorable retirement option
- holding that it is important to construe the statutes and regulations relating to pensions with due regard to the significant interest of public employees
- explaining "the Board may honor a pensioner's request to reopen [a] retirement selection after it is due and payable if a showing of good cause, reasonable grounds, and reasonable diligence has been made"
- “It is virtually axiomatic that statutory pension provisions are to be liberally construed in favor of public employees . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*579 POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI, Justices,
dissenting.
We would affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion filed in the Appellate Division, reported at 235 N.J.Super. 356 (1988).
For reversal — Chief Justice, WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER and STEIN — 4.
For Affirmance — Justices POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 3.