Bona Fide Termination Requirement for Article 15 Retirement Benefits

Introduction

Matter of Radwan v. DiNapoli, 2025 NYSlipOp 02118 (App. Div. 3d Dep’t Apr. 10, 2025) addresses whether a public‐sector employee seeking retirement under Retirement and Social Security Law (RSSL) article 15 must fully cease all public employment before the effective retirement date. The petitioner, Daniel Radwan, a long‐tenured correction officer with New York’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), concurrently worked part‐time for the Frontier Central School District. When he applied for service retirement benefits under RSSL article 15, Radwan selected April 27, 2019 as his retirement date but did not resign from the school district until April 2021. The State Comptroller (“Respondent”) denied his benefits, finding no bona fide termination of his school‐district employment. Radwan challenged that denial in a CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Comptroller’s determination. It held that:

To qualify for RSSL article 15 benefits, an applicant must demonstrate a genuine cessation or termination of public employment before the chosen retirement date.
Simply filing a retirement application and abstaining from work on the designated date is insufficient if the applicant remains on the payroll and continues to perform services thereafter.
Substantial evidence supported the finding that Radwan neither resigned nor was removed from payroll until April 2021, thereby negating a bona fide termination as of April 27, 2019.
Radwan’s due process argument and his estoppel claim based on alleged erroneous advice were both rejected.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied heavily on its recent decision in Matter of Strzepek v. DiNapoli, 227 AD3d 1353 (3d Dep’t 2024). In Strzepek, the court held that:

An applicant must actually retire—that is, terminate employment—to invoke RSSL article 15.
The requirement that retirement be “genuine” includes removal from payroll and a cessation of services.

The decision also invoked established principles from:

Matter of Tamucci v. DiNapoli, 133 AD3d 960 (3d Dep’t 2015), which confirms the Comptroller’s exclusive authority to interpret and determine retirement claims.
Matter of Graziose v. DiNapoli, 137 AD3d 1452 (3d Dep’t 2016), reinforcing that a reasonable statutory interpretation by the Comptroller must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.
Estoppel‐related cases such as Matter of Taranto v. City of Glen Cove, 212 AD3d 826 (2d Dep’t 2023), and Matter of Burns v. Regan, 87 AD2d 944 (3d Dep’t 1982), illustrating the general rule that estoppel does not apply against a government body exercising its sovereign functions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s rationale unfolds in two key components:

Statutory Interpretation: RSSL article 15 applies to individuals who retire from certain public employers (including school districts). The text requires a legitimate cessation of employment before benefits commence. The Comptroller’s interpretation—that termination must be bona fide, evidenced by resignation and payroll removal—is deemed reasonable.
Substantial Evidence Review: Radwan continued to accept assignments and remain on the school district payroll until 2021. This factual finding was unchallenged and amply supported by documentary evidence and testimony before the Hearing Officer.

On due process, the court concluded the Comptroller’s policy clarification fell within statutory authority, and no new standard was imposed. Regarding estoppel, the court reaffirmed that incorrect advice by administrative staff cannot override a clear statutory disqualification.

Impact

Radwan cements the requirement that public‐sector employees seeking Article 15 retirement must fully terminate all public employment before the designated retirement date. Future applicants and their counsel must ensure:

Submission of a formal resignation or termination notice to every relevant public employer.
Removal from payroll records and cessation of all duties before the effective retirement date.
Avoidance of reliance on informal assurances or staff advice that contradict statutory requirements.

Administrative bodies will feel emboldened to enforce strict adherence to statutory text and to recoup any improperly paid benefits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 14 vs. Article 15 Retirement: Correction officers typically retire under Article 14, but when they serve under eligible employers like school districts, they may retire under Article 15, which can yield enhanced benefits.
Bona Fide Termination: A genuine end to employment, evidenced by a resignation letter or similar formal act, removal from payroll, and no resumption of work.
Substantial Evidence Standard: Appellate courts defer to the agency’s factual findings if they rest on credible evidence—documentary and testimonial—without weighing credibility anew.
Estoppel Against Government: Generally, one cannot force a government agency to honor incorrect advice when doing so would contravene clear statutory mandates.

Conclusion

Matter of Radwan v. DiNapoli underscores the uncompromising requirement that applicants for RSSL article 15 service retirement must effectuate a bona fide termination of all public employment before the chosen retirement date. The decision reaffirms the Comptroller’s interpretive authority and the deference afforded to his factual determinations. It clarifies that neither half‐measures—such as informal work stoppage—nor reliance on administrative misstatements can substitute for formal resignation and payroll removal. This ruling will guide practitioners and litigants in structuring unequivocal retirement plans and will shape the administration of public‐employee benefits across New York State.