Bernice Curry-Malcolm v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System, et al.

The Questions Presented are:

1. The word “substantial” is not found in the governing statute, CPLR 5601 (a), or the New York State Constitution provision that provides for appeals as of right on constitutional grounds. N.Y. Const, art. VI, § 3(b)(l)-(2) There is a conflict in the circuits as to what the word “substantial” means, and whether dismissal of appeals as of right sua sponte deprives an ag­ grieved party of his or her due process rights under to constitutionally protected pension rights.

2. Whether the allegations of disparate treatment in the New York State Teach­ ers’ Retirement System’s calculations of a members’ salary, service credits and pen­ sion and where the appeal involves the validity of a state or federal statute and support an appeal as a of right pursuant to CPLR 5601.

3. Petitioner’s argument that rejected by the courts below that she has a constitu­ tionally protected right in her salary, ser­ vice credits and pension, violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Whether Pe­ titioner raised a substantial constitu­ tional objection to the violation of her due process rights thus entitling her to an ap­ peal as of right under CPLR 5601.