LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 2789367
Citation: domestic relations order · Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- domestic relations order
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2789367 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.
Retrieval annotation
Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues
Evidence quotes
retirement benefits“April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being processed and, on June 29, 2011, petitioner telephoned respondent and again stated that he did not wish to retire. Petit”
domestic relations order“e Buffalo Police Department in 1988. With an eye towards retirement, he met with a retirement information representative in April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being pro”
Source and provenance
- Source type
- courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
- Permissions posture
- public
- Generated status
- machine draft public v0
- Review status
- gold label pending
- Jurisdiction metadata
- US
- Deterministic extraction
- reporter: domestic relations order
- Generated at
- May 14, 2026
Related public corpus pages
Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.
Clean opinion text
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: March 26, 2015 519268 ________________________________ In the Matter of JOHN SANDERS, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. ________________________________ Calendar Date: February 9, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ. __________ Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Buffalo (Jonathan Johnsen of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent. __________ Clark, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller which denied petitioner's request to withdraw his application for service retirement. Petitioner began working as a police officer for the Buffalo Police Department in 1988. With an eye towards retirement, he met with a retirement information representative in April 2011 and filed an application for service retirement benefits effective June 30, 2011. He learned at the meeting, however, that a domestic relations order filed with respondent -2- 519268 would result in his ex-wife receiving a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Petitioner believed that the terms of the order were inaccurate and, as such, told the representative that he did not wish to retire until that problem could be resolved. It became apparent that his retirement application was still being processed and, on June 29, 2011, petitioner telephoned respondent and again stated that he did not wish to retire. Petitioner continued to work until July 27, 2011, when he was advised by his employer that he had retired. Petitioner's subsequent written request to withdraw his retirement application was denied as untimely. Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer agreed that petitioner was not entitled to withdraw his retirement application. The Comptroller adopted the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. The Comptroller \is vested with the exclusive