From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Board of New York
Court of Appeals of New York
250 N.E.2d 460 (1969)
Mrs. Ortelere worked as a teacher for many years and participated in the Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York (the System), administered by the Teachers’ Retirement Board of New York (the Board) (defendant). At one point, she had elected a retirement payout that would provide a small amount of monthly income and a reserve that would be paid to her husband, Mr. Ortelere (plaintiff) upon her death. When Mrs. Ortelere was 60, she suffered a “nervous breakdown” and took a leave of absence. She began treatment with a psychiatrist employed by the Board of Education. The psychiatrist diagnosed her with “involutional psychosis, melancholia type” and administered tranquilizer and shock therapy. Her psychiatrist never felt she was well enough to return to work. She also deteriorated to the point that her husband quit his job to take care of her. On February 11, several months after her breakdown, but just before the expiration of her leave of absence, Mrs. Ortelere executed an application to the Board whereby she elected to change her retirement payout. She changed her payout to provide larger monthly income and no reserve to be paid out upon her death. She also borrowed against the account. At this time she had been happily married to her husband for 38 years. Three days prior to the February election, Mrs. Ortelere informed the Board she intended to retire and asked specific questions that reflected understanding of the retirement system. Two months after the February election, Mrs. Ortelere died from a condition unrelated to her mental condition. Her husband and executor of her estate brought suit seeking to revoke the February election to have it declared void for lack of mental capacity. The trial court held that Mrs. Ortelere was mentally incompetent and, therefore, her February election was null and void. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed Mr. Ortelere's complaint, holding there was insufficient evidence of incapacity. Mr. Ortelere appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Breitel, J.)
Dissent (Jasen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.