92 N.Y.2d 67 (1998)
The term “transfer” in Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(d) and Education Law § 522(2) refers to a change of employment, not merely a transfer of service credits between retirement systems; thus, the three-year restriction on combining retirement benefits applies only when an employee changes jobs within three years of retirement.
Summary
Guido, a public school teacher, sought to combine prior service in the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System (NYSLERS) with his 31 years in the State Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) to increase his pension benefits. TRS denied the combination, citing Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(d) and Education Law § 522(2), which restrict transfers within three years of retirement. Guido argued that these laws apply only to changes in employment, which he did not make. The Court of Appeals held that “transfer” refers to a change of employment, modifying the lower court’s decision and allowing Guido to combine his service credits.
Facts
Guido worked seasonally for the Long Island State Park Region from 1958 to 1971 while also working as a full-time public school teacher for 31 years leading up to January 1994. In 1994, Guido applied to NYSLERS to transfer his State parks service time to TRS. Only five years and seven months of his park service (time before his teaching position) could be transferred. TRS informed Guido that transfers are “restricted if the request to transfer is within three years from the date of retirement,” resulting in separate pension calculations that denied him approximately $7,000 in additional annual pension payments.
Procedural History
Guido filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging TRS’s determination. Supreme Court upheld the TRS’s interpretation. The Appellate Division affirmed, although disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s standard of review, stating that deference was not warranted because it involved pure statutory interpretation. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the term “transfer,” as used in Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(d) and Education Law § 522(2), refers to a change of employment or merely a transfer of service credits between retirement systems?
Holding
Yes, because the term “transfer” in Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(d) and Education Law § 522(2) refers to a change of employment, not merely a transfer of service credits.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that deference to the agency’s interpretation was not required, as the issue involved pure statutory reading and analysis. The court examined the language of Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(d) and Education Law § 522(2). While the statutes could be interpreted to mean a transfer of credits alone, the Court held that they must be read in their entirety. Specifically, Education Law § 522(2) refers to the employee being credited in the system “to which he is transferring” and requires “three years of service in the second retirement system.” Furthermore, Retirement and Social Security Law § 43(a) states that a transfer “may be effectuated only if the member has accepted a position in another branch of the state or municipal service.” The Court also reviewed the legislative history, which indicated that the statutes were aimed at changes of employment. The Court quoted its own prior decisions: “When an individual changes employment from or to State service.” The court noted that the three-year restriction was a “moderate limitation on the much larger beneficial purpose” designed to reduce burdens imposed by changes in employment. The court also considered statements from the TRS, which indicated the three-year limitation was designed to prevent “gaming” by employees who change employment on the eve of retirement. The court concluded that since Guido did not change jobs within three years of retiring, he was entitled to combine his service credits.