Skip to main content

Matter of Teichmann v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

N.Y. App. Div.December 3, 2019No. 10479 101209/18
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the petitioner's Article 78 proceeding seeking retroactive retirement disability benefits, finding it time-barred under CPLR 217(1) since it was filed more than four months after the retirement system's final determination.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Ruling Summary: Teichmann v. New York City Employees' Retirement System** **What Happened:** This case involved a dispute between an employee or former employee named Teichmann and the New York City Employees' Retirement System. The specific details of the disagreement are not clear from the available information, but it likely involved issues related to pension benefits, retirement eligibility, or other employment-related matters handled by the city's retirement system. **What the Court Decided:** The New York Appellate Division issued a decision in this case in December 2019. However, the specific outcome and reasoning behind the court's ruling are not detailed in the available case summary. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While the specific details aren't available, this case represents the type of employment disputes that can arise between workers and retirement systems. These cases often involve important issues like pension calculations, benefit eligibility, or retirement timing. Such rulings can set precedents that affect how retirement benefits are administered for public employees. Workers should understand that they have the right to challenge retirement system decisions through the courts when they believe their benefits have been improperly calculated or denied. *Note: This summary is based on limited information. For complete details, the full court decision would need to be reviewed.*

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.