Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

STEPHEN R. FERRUCCI III v. TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY ET AL. (AC 32271)
Gruendel, Lavine and Bear, Js. Argued May 26--officially released September 6, 2011

(Apeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Gilligan, J. [motion to strike]; Upson, J. [motion for judgment]; Cronan, J. [motion for summary judgment; judgment].) Thomas G. Moukawsher, for the appellant (plaintiff). Nicole D. Dorman, for the appellee (named defendant).

Opinion

GRUENDEL, J. This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of a municipal retirement plan. The plaintiff, Stephen R. Ferrucci III, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Middlebury.1 He claims that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to (1) his eligibility for a ``normal retirement'' benefit pursuant to the provisions of the defendant's retirement plan (plan) and (2) his claim of promissory estoppel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; see Martinelli v. Fusi, 290 Conn. 347, 350, 963 A.2d 640 (2009); reveals the following facts. The plaintiff was born on November 2, 1949, and was hired by the defendant as a full-time police officer on December 1, 1974. He was a member of a bargaining unit comprised of police officers that negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements with the defendant, including one effective July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1990. That agreement required, inter alia, the defendant to ``maintain in effect for the duration of this [a]greement the [plan] dated July 1, 1967, as amended on February 14, 1973.'' The plaintiff retired as a full-time police officer at the age of thirty-eight on October 24, 1988. At that time, he had attained almost fourteen years of credited service with the defendant. In his deposition testimony, which was submitted in support of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff averred that he ``left that job [with the defendant] for . . . a better working schedule'' and further that he had secured a position with ``Local 760 of the . . . Service Employees International Union,'' with whom he subsequently worked for more than two decades. Seven years after terminating his employment with the defendant, the plaintiff contacted the defendant's finance director seeking information about his retirement benefit under the plan. The finance director, in turn, contacted the plan's actuary, who, in a letter dated December 4, 1995, calculated that the plaintiff would become eligible for a monthly benefit of $658.89 pursuant to the normal retirement provisions of the plan beginning December 1, 2004. Once informed of that calculation, the plaintiff met with a financial advisor, modified certain contributions to a variable annuity contract and made plans to retire from his current employment at a date certain.2 In 2002, the defendant's retirement committee consulted with the plan's actuary. In response, the actuary prepared a December 12, 2002 letter, a copy of which was provided to the plaintiff, which stated that the plaintiff would not be entitled to a monthly benefit

pursuant to the normal retirement provisions of the plan on December 1, 2004. Rather, it stated that the plaintiff could receive a reduced monthly benefit of $263.56 pursuant to the early retirement provisions of the plan on that date and would qualify for the $658.89 normal retirement benefit on December 1, 2014. On October 15, 2004, the plaintiff agreed to receive the reduced benefit while reserving his right to contest the denial of the normal retirement benefit.3 The plaintiff commenced the present litigation in 2006. His March 21, 2007 amended complaint contained two counts against the defendant alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. On June 8, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, to which it attached in support thereof a copy of the plan and portions of the plaintiff's deposition testimony. See Practice Book

Download Ferrucci v. Middlebury.pdf

Connecticut Law