Crown v. The Trs. Of The Patrolmen's Variable Supplements Fund, 819 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Crown v. The Trs. Of The Patrolmen's Variable Supplements Fund, 819 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. (ohio, 1998-08-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.
Ohio · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown v. Patrolmen’s Variable Supplements Fund Trustees (S.D.N.Y.1987), 659 F.Supp. 318, 320 , affirmed (C.A.2, 1987), 819 F.2d 47 . {¶ 19} Granted, funds held in the teachers’ savings fund superficially resemble personal annuities in that R.C. 3307.19 requires the STRB to maintain separate accounts for each contributing teacher, showing both the teacher’s contribution and interest accumulated thereon.
cited Cited "see" State ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Board
Ohio · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown v. Patrolmen’s Variable Supplements Fund Trustees (S.D.N.Y.1987), 659 F.Supp. 318, 320 , affirmed (C.A.2,1987), 819 F.2d 47 .
discussed Cited "see" Castellano v. Board of Trustees of the Police Officer's Variable Supplements Fund
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown v. Trustees of Patrolmen’s Variable Supplements Fund, 819 F.2d 47 , 47-48 (2d Cir.1987) (motion to dismiss granted where plaintiffs, former patrolmen and superior officers of the New York City Police Department, failed to allege a constitutionally protected property right to variable supplements fund payments because there is no entitlement to assets or earnings of assets held for investment purposes in a pension fund); Poggi v. New York, 109 A.D.2d 265 , 491 N.Y.S.2d 331 (1st Dep’t 1985), aff'd mem. on other grounds, 67 N.Y.2d 794 , 501 N.Y.S.2d 324 , 492 N.E.2d 397 (1986) (inve…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John J. Crown, George L. Demott, Donald Fogarty, George Sorkvist, Adrian H. Richner, Francis Czelisniak, Richard M. Kerwick, Robert E. Tuffy, Harry J. Brix, Jr., David W. Sackman, James Stevens, William C. Clancy, Walter J. Fenn, Joseph M. Concheiro, Robert A. Hawd, Edward J. Rayn, Raymond J. Benoit, Stephen J. Stanley, George J. Todd, Francis O'Hagan
v.
The Trustees of the Patrolmen's Variable Supplements Fund, the Trustees of the Police Superior Officers' Variable Supplements Fund, and the City of New York
1138.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 19, 1987.
819 F.2d 47
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

819 F.2d 47

John J. CROWN, George L. Demott, Donald Fogarty, George
Sorkvist, Adrian H. Richner, Francis Czelisniak, Richard M.
Kerwick, Robert E. Tuffy, Harry J. Brix, Jr., David W.
Sackman, James Stevens, William C. Clancy, Walter J. Fenn,
Joseph M. Concheiro, Robert A. Hawd, Edward J. Rayn, Raymond
J. Benoit, Stephen J. Stanley, George J. Todd, Francis
O'Hagan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The TRUSTEES OF the PATROLMEN'S VARIABLE SUPPLEMENTS FUND,
the Trustees of the Police Superior Officers'
Variable Supplements Fund, and the City
of New York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1138, Docket 87-7147.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 1987.
Decided May 19, 1987.

Ronald Podolsky, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

June A. Witterschein, Asst. Corp. Counsel, New York City (Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, Lucy A. Cardwell, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, PRATT and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiffs, former patrolmen and superior officers of the New York City Police Department who retired before October 1968, appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Shirley Wohl Kram, Judge, granting defendants' motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs claim to have been deprived of property without due process of law in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. The property to which plaintiffs claim entitlement consists of supplementary payments from two "variable supplements funds" that were created by the New York legislature after plaintiffs had retired from the police department.

2

Although the enabling state legislation expressly provides that the supplementary payments are not considered pension or retirement payments, are legally distinct from the pension funds, and are not payable to people, such as plaintiffs, who had retired before October 1, 1968, plaintiffs nevertheless assert they are entitled to receive supplementary payments because those payments derive from the excess investment earnings of the pension funds to which they had contributed.

3

For substantially the reasons stated in the opinion below of the Hon. Shirley Wohl Kram, Crown v. Trustees of the Patrolmen's Variable Supplements Fund, 659 F.Supp. 318 (S.D.N.Y.1987), we hold that plaintiffs have failed to allege a constitutionally recognized property right in the variable supplements fund payments. We have carefully considered plaintiffs' other claims and find them to be without merit.

4

Affirmed. Defendants' request for imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs is denied.