Skip to main content

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES THAT A SAINT LAWRENCE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL PAY $42,000 TO SETTLE PENSION ABUSE CASE


ALBANY, N.Y. (October 6, 2008) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced a settlement agreement with a retired Saint Lawrence County Attorney who was improperly listed as an employee of four public sector entities, including the Village of Canton, the Saint Lawrence-Lewis Board of Cooperative Educational Services (“BOCES”), the Colton Pierrepont School District, and the Lisbon Central School District.

John D. Elmer retired in January 1998 and began receiving a small annual pension through the New York State Employees’ Retirement Fund (“ERS”). Under the settlement, Elmer will pay the State of New York $42,000, will cease receiving state-funded pension benefits of any kind, and will forfeit any claims to monetary contributions he may have made to ERS in connection with his purported “employments.”

At various times between 1974 and 1998, Elmer was listed as an employee of four public sector entities: the Village of Canton (1974 to 1980), Saint Lawrence-Lewis BOCES (1974 to 1998), Colton-Pierrepont Central School District (1978 to 1987), and Lisbon Central School District (1984 to 1992). Elmer accrued pension credits with ERS in connection with each of these positions. However, at each of these positions, he provided legal services as an independent contractor, i.e., as outside retained counsel, and was not entitled to accrue state pension credits for that work.

“This is more evidence of the fraud in our pension system that has been ripping off New York taxpayers,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “Lawyers abusing the public benefits system are costing New Yorkers both tax dollars and public trust.”

Attorney General Cuomo’s ongoing statewide investigation of pension abuse includes more than 4,000 local governments and special districts across New York State, all school districts and the 37 Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (“BOCES”). The investigation has already revealed that many lawyers had improperly remained on public payrolls for such extended periods of time, or were included on the payrolls of so many public sector employers simultaneously, that they accumulated substantial credits in the New York State pension system. More...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more