DeLuca v. New York State & Local Employees' Ret. Sys., 48 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
DeLuca v. New York State & Local Employees' Ret. Sys., 48 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · …has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to service credits ✓
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Walsh v. Office of the N.Y. State Comptroller (nyappdiv, 2023-06-22)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Walsh v. Office of the N.Y. State Comptroller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
As petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in this regard, his application for retirement benefits was properly denied upon this ground ( see generally Matter of Caetano v DiNapoli , 140 AD3d 1579, 1580-1581 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 906 [2016]; Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys. , 48 AD3d 876, 877-878 [3d Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Brickman v. DiNapoli (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
We confirm. "[I]t is the Comptroller's duty to determine retirement service credits and his determination will be upheld by this Court if rational and supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys. , 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]; see Matter of Muccia v DiNapoli , 69 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Caetano v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moreover, petitioner has the burden of establishing an entitlement to additional service credit (see Matter of Westmorland v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 129 AD3d at 1403-1404 ; Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Westmoreland v. New York State and Local Retirement System
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
State & Local Retirement Sys.], 106 AD3d 1321 , 1322 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 854 [2013]; Matter of Muccia v DiNapoli, 69 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2010]; Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ratzker v. Office of New York State Comptroller (New York State & Local Retirement System)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to determine applications regarding retirement benefits, including service credit (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 74 [b]), and such determinations must be confirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Muccia v DiNapoli, 69 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2010]; Matter of Carabello v DiNapoli, 51 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2008]; Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]; Matter of Siepierski v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 46 AD3d 1316, 1318 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ratzker v. Office of New York State Comptroller (New York State & Local Retirement System)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to determine applications regarding retirement benefits, including service credit (see Retirement and Social Security Law § 74 [b]), and such determinations must be confirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Muccia v DiNapoli, 69 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2010]; Matter of Carabello v DiNapoli, 51 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2008]; Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]; Matter of Siepierski v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 46 AD3d 1316, 1318 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Muccia v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
It is well settled that “it is [respondent’s] duty to determine retirement service credits and his determination will be upheld by this Court if rational and supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]; see Matter of Itzenplitz v McCall, 282 AD2d 889, 889 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carabello v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Preliminarily, the Comptroller is vested with exclusive authority to determine retirement service credit, and his determination in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will be upheld (see Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]; Matter of Siepierski v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 46 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Pearson v. DiNapoli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well settled that a “petitioner has the burden of proof to establish his [or her] entitlement to retirement service credit and that respondent’s determination in this regard must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of McMorrow v Hevesi, 6 AD3d 925, 926 [2004]; see Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael M. DeLuca
v.
New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 14, 2008.
48 A.D.3d 876
Carpinello.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Carpinello, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78[*877] (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for additional service credit in the calculation of his retirement benefits.

Petitioner applied to respondent New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System for service credit for time spent working at an ice rink for the City of Long Beach during the months of November through March in the years 1964 through 1966. Due to lost employment records, the city could only confirm that petitioner worked from January 26, 1966 to March 16, 1966 and the Retirement System credited petitioner for that period, but rejected his claim for the remaining time. Petitioner requested a hearing, after which the Hearing Officer determined that petitioner failed to establish entitlement to service credit for the time in question. Respondent Comptroller affirmed this decision on administrative appeal, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Clearly, it is the Comptroller’s duty to determine retirement service credits and his determination will be upheld by this Court if rational and supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Itzenplitz v McCall, 282 AD2d 889, 889 [2001]; Matter of Belemjian v Regan, 199 AD2d 770, 771 [1993]). Furthermore, petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to service credits (see Matter of Canzoneri v Hevesi, 21 AD3d 639, 639-640 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 715 [2005]; Matter of McMorrow v Hevesi, 6 AD3d 925, 926 [2004]). Here, the Retirement System’s assistant bureau director testified that in situations where an employer no longer has records to confirm employment, previous service credit can be granted if employment can be verified through Internal Revenue Service forms, Social Security Administration forms or other documentation of earnings and length of service that, in the discretion of the Retirement System, is deemed reliable and objective evidence of previous service to enable an accurate determination of the amount of available credit.

In lieu of the missing employment records, petitioner submitted a statement from the assistant superintendent of recreation for the city during the time in question, as well as his own testimony, the testimony of a coworker and the statements of two friends, which attested to petitioner’s employment from 1964 through 1966, but could only approximate his hours worked and earnings from that period. Petitioner could not further support his claim through Social Security Administration reports or tax documentation. Due to the lack of evidence pre[*878] sented by petitioner that would enable an accurate calculation of petitioner’s earnings and length of service, we find the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner not be credited for employment during the time in question to be rational and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Canzoneri v Hevesi, 21 AD3d at 639-640; Matter of McMorrow v Hevesi, 6 AD3d at 927).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.