Prior to his employment with the Quincy Housing Authority, Lydon was an employee of MassDevelopment from April 17, 2007, through May 13, 2013. In May of 2017, Lydon retired from the Quincy Housing Authority, where he worked for approximately four years. The plaintiff, James Lydon, challenges that interpretation as being erroneous as matter of law. 32, § 3 (5), that a member of a retirement system who seeks to purchase pre-membership service from a different governmental unit, which did not have a contributory retirement system at the time of that service, must demonstrate that the previous governmental unit has since established a G. A Superior Court judge upheld CRAB's interpretation of the statutory language of G. 32 retirement allowance for his prior service with the MassDevelopment Finance Agency (MassDevelopment). 32, § 3 (5), in denying the plaintiff's request to obtain credit towards his G. This appeal presents the question whether the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) properly interpreted Michael Sacco for retirement board of Quincy. Martland, Assistant Attorney General, for Contributory Retirement Appeal Board.
Roach, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings.ĭouglas S. Ĭivil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 23, 2020. 32 contributory retirement system, the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase credit for his service with MassDevelopment under G. 32 retirement system accordingly, given that MassDevelopment had neither adopted, nor been authorized to implement, a G. 32, § 3 (5), that a member of a retirement system who sought to purchase pre-membership service from a different governmental unit, which did not have a contributory retirement system at the time of that service, was required to demonstrate that the previous governmental unit had since established a G. 32 retirement allowance for his prior service with the MassDevelopment Finance Agency (MassDevelopment), the Superior Court judge properly upheld the board's interpretation of G. In a civil action challenging the denial by the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (board) of the request by the plaintiff, who had retired from a municipal housing authority, to obtain credit towards his G. Statute, Construction.ĭiscussion of the standard of review of a decision of the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (board), which is de novo with regard to questions of law, but with deference to the board's expertise and according great weight to the board's interpretation and application of the statutory provisions it administers. 365 ApJCourt Below: Superior Court, Suffolk County Present: Meade, Englander, & Grant, JJ.Ĭontributory Retirement Appeal Board.
CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD & another. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD, 101 Mass.
0 kommentar(er)
