Sigismondi v. Queens Transit Corp.

Hopkins, Acting P. J. (dissenting).

I find that the terms of the contract are ambiguous, for they simultaneously can be read as granting a ‘ ‘ regular ’ ’ pension computed by multiplying 1% of the average monthly pay during the last 10 years of employment by either (1) the entire number of the employee’s years of service (section 9 of the contract) or (2) the “ twenty-five (25) years of continuous service for the purpose of the regular pension” (section 8 of the contract). Moreover, the contract as interpreted by the plaintiff results in a limit of 25 years of service as a basis for the…