New York Law Journal
  • Home
  • News
  • Decisions
  • Columns
  • Practice Areas
  • My NYLJ
  • Careers
  • Courts
  • Verdicts
  • Public Notices
  • Smart Litigator

Home > Court Rejects Ex-Judge's Attempt to Qualify for State Health Plan

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Court Rejects Ex-Judge's Attempt to Qualify for State Health Plan

By Joel Stashenko Contact All Articles 

New York Law Journal

February 15, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
Robert Holdman

Former Acting Justice Robert Holdman in 2006

Related Items

  • Holdman v. Office, Court Administration, 121182

A former judge's attempt to qualify permanently for state health insurance coverage has been rejected by his former court.

Court of Claims Judge Alan Marin (See Profile) ruled in Holdman v. Office of Court Administration, 121182, that both benefits statutes and precedents prevent him from accepting Robert Holdman's petition to correct what amounts to the ministerial error by state officials who wrongly advised Holdman that he would become eligible for state health coverage after leaving the Judiciary.

Holdman, who was designated as an acting state Supreme Court justice in Westchester County while a Court of Claims judge from 2005 to 2011, said he timed the effective date of his resignation from state service, Sept. 30, 2011, with the understanding that he would continue paying premiums into his health plan with the state Health Insurance Plan (NYSHIP).

Holdman said his goal was to become vested in the plan at the end of 2014 upon having being in the system for 10 years.

Once he reached age 55, vesting in the plan offered the prospect of family coverage for $250 a month versus $1,600 a month for non-vested employees.

In fact, Holdman said, he was told by William Gilchrist of the judicial benefits office of the Office of Court Administration not to participate in his new employer's health plan but to continue paying premiums into the state plan. If there was an interruption in payments to the state plan, Gilchrist warned Holdman, he would not be permitted to rejoin it.

According to the ruling, Holdman, who is now 49, realized there was a problem in January 2012 when he was told by Gilchrist that the time Holdman had spent as an assistant district attorney in the Bronx from August 1991 to June 2005 would not count toward being vested in the health plan.

Since his judicial service of just over six years was well shy of the 10 years he needed for vesting in the NYSHIP plan, Gilchrist told Holdman he would not be eligible.

Had he known that, Holdman told the Court of Claims, he would have remained as a judge for three more years and nine months in order to reach the required 10 years.

Holdman was one of the more outspoken judges in the late 2000s and early 2010s as the Judiciary lobbied for its first pay raise since January 1999. In his resignation letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo, Holdman said the lack of judicial pay raises was the "sole" reason he was leaving for the private sector (NYLJ, Sept. 15, 2011).

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next



Subscribe to New York Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • NYSHIP
  • Spencer & Fleming
  • West Legend
  • Health Insurance Plan
  • Court of Appeals

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Legal Services NYC Employees Strike; Lower Intake Expected
    •      
  2. Stop-and-Frisk Judge Relishes Her Independence
    •      
  3. Trial Founders on 'Personality Issues' Between Judge, Counsel
    •      
  4. Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices
    •      
  5. Donovan Criticizes Secret Payoff to Lopez Victims
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Taking the Reins of Legal Department Operations

In-House Law: Now in 3-D!

Simpson Helps Yahoo, Tumblr Connect for $1 Billion Deal

Kasowitz Benson Launches in Los Angeles

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Collaboration Is Key to Defending Cyberattacks

Stanford Law Builds on Role as Legal Tech Incubator

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Appellate Division To Roll Out Electronic Case Filing System

Court Limits Liability for Injury Or Death of One Invited To Help
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices

NYC Defends Police Department's Use of Stop-and-Frisk

Immigrant Investor Program Gets Watchful Eye

Parties Ordered to Hire Neutral Expert to Probe Facebook

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Water Warriors: Local Governments Bring Pollution Suits
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Brooks Looks To Political Ally For Criminal Defense

Attorney Fee Hearing in Waffle House Sex Case Heats Up
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • Books
  • Advertise
  • Contact NYLJ
  • About NYLJ
  • RSS
  • Subscribe
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media