Legal Opinion
Ameruso v. City of New York
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 19, 1988PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
David B. Saxe, J.
I hold that the right of New York City employees to receive, upon retirement, payment of a lump sum for their unused leave is not absolute. It is contingent upon faithful service *390without fault or misconduct, even when the applicable municipal regulations in effect at the time of the employee’s retirement temporarily failed to include any such explicit condition. The condition that such payment may be made only where the employee’s termination was without fault or misconduct must be implied in light of preceding and subsequent regulations, and in view of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Claim of Thomas v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Matter of Giannettino v. McGoldrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
- In re the Arbitration between Teachers Ass'n, Central High School District No. 3 & Board of Education, Central High School District No. 3Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Matter of AlmeidaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1992
- Degnan v. ConstantineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- In re the Commission on Judicial Tenure & Discipline Proceedings Against AlmeidaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1992
- DeVincenzo v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995