[DOWNLOAD] "Herman D. Abrams Et Al. v. Board Education City Yonkers" by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Herman D. Abrams Et Al. v. Board Education City Yonkers
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 13, 1982
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
such amounts in the final average salary of each petitioner, the Board of Education of the City of Yonkers appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered April 16, 1981, as denied its motion to dismiss the petition under CPLR 7804 (subd [f]). Leave to appeal is granted by Justice OConnor. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the petition is dismissed as against the board of education, on the merits. The sole issue raised by appellant board of education concerns petitioners right to bring this proceeding against it after the matter had allegedly been settled by agreement with the Yonkers Federation of Teachers, the collective bargaining agent that represented petitioners before their retirement from service. The gist of petitioners claim is that their financial interests were ignored in the settlement of deferred salary litigation because restitution was agreed to in the form of salary increases in a new union contract taking effect after they had retired. They therefore seek direct payment of the deferred amounts. The genesis of the problem was the boards withholding of salary increases, required under a 1974-1977 collective bargaining agreement, for the period of November 20, 1975 through June 30, 1977 because of legislation "[suspending]" such increases and excluding them from the computation of teacher pensions under the Education Law during the citys financial emergency (L 1975, ch 871 [New York State Financial Emergency Act for the City of Yonkers, § 10, subd 1] eff Nov. 14, 1975). The union responded to the withholding of salary increases by invoking the agreements grievance procedure and seeking arbitration in July or September, 1976. Over objection of the board, Special Term directed the parties to arbitration. Although the unions demand for arbitration did not specifically address the pension aspect of the salary deferral, in this proceeding the school board contends that the "specific issue involved" before Special Term in the arbitration matter was "the right to secure the suspended salary and the effect on pensions " (emphasis added), and Special Terms decision in that matter did, in fact, address the issue of whether the legislation impaired the teachers pension rights in violation of the State Constitution. An appeal by the board from the order of Special Term, the demand for arbitration and other claims by the parties against one another were withdrawn with prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement dated October 1, 1977, in exchange for a new collective bargaining agreement. The stipulation described the withdrawn demand for arbitration as one "complaining of the Boards failure to pay members of the bargaining unit wage increases, increments and lane increases for the 1976-1977 school year", but it also specified that the unions counterclaim, seeking to declare the legislation unconstitutional on its face and as applied, would be withdrawn. The counterclaim apparently alleged that the teachers pension rights were unconstitutionally impaired by the deferral legislation. The state of emergency justifying the suspension was declared ended as of June 30, 1978 and, pursuant to the legislation, the suspension was terminated on December 31, 1978. Although the board of education had performed its obligations under the settlement, it refused to satisfy petitioners demands, as retired teachers not covered by the new contract, for direct payment of the suspended increases and recomputation of their pension bases. In bringing the instant proceeding, petitioners argued that their claims had not been released by the stipulation of settlement because it had been executed by the board of education and the union, not by them, and because the union no longer represented them once they retired. Most of the petitioners had in fact [91 A.D.2d 618 Page 620]