A state judge on Wednesday dismissed a nearly six-year-old lawsuit filed by the Board of Alders against the Elicker administration over the mayor’s handling of pension enhancements for former city fire union President Frank Ricci.  In his ruling, state Superior Court Judge Jon Blue declined t o review the merits of the case. Instead, he threw out the alders’ complaint because Ricci, the recipient of the retirement-payments boost, is no longer named as a defendant and therefore has no representation in the case. Blue handed down the decision in a sixth-floor courtroom at 235 Church St. on Wednesday. “You’re telling me to turn off the spigot of money without hearing from the person receiving that money,” Blue told the alders’ attorneys, Steve Mednick and Brian Estep. “At the barest minimum,” issuing a judgment on the merits would be “unsound practice” without hearing from Ricci and MetLife, the insurance company that took over the retirement agreement. The case focuses on Ricci’s pension enhancement, which was negotiated with the city in 2020. According to a joint stipulation of facts, the deal topped off Ricci’s monthly pension disbursements with an additional stream of payments. The terms increase Ricci’s monthly retirement income by $1,076.20. After he dies, his wife would receive $699.53 each month. MetLife took over Ricci’s annuity agreement in exchange for a $386,659.92 payment from the city. This transfer led the Board of Alders in 2020 to sue the Elicker administration for violating a local law that requires all contracts worth $100,000 or more to be approved by the city’s legislature. Through the life of the case, Mayor Justin Elicker has stressed that his administration is not the one that approved Ricci’s pension enhancements. Instead, that agreement between the city and the fire union was first signed by the DeStefano administration in 2006; it was then amended by the Harp administration in 2019. “All along, this [case] hasn’t been about giving a benefit to Ricci,” Elicker told the Independent on Wednesday. “This has been about following through on a legal commitment that was made by a previous administration.” “The alders are right in their frustration over the agreement that was made, but it’s an agreement that was created by the city and required us to follow through,” he added. In the alders’ initial lawsuit, Ricci, MetLife, and the City of New Haven were named as defendants in the case. Before the alders dropped Ricci as a defendant, he had filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the city cannot sue itself. Last year, a state judge disagreed, allowing the city’s legislative branch to continue its case against the city’s chief executive. In court on Wednesday, the Board of Alders’ attorneys asked Judge Blue to review their arguments about the legality of the $386,659.92 contract. Instead, the judge questioned the due process of arbitrating the case without representation from MetLife and Ricci. “‘Hear all sides’ is really of the utmost importance,” said Blue. Speaking from his experience as a pension recipient, a court ruling on his retirement benefits without his knowledge would inflict, “at a minimum, a great deal of loss of sleep, great anxiety, and of course, it [would put] my whole life in jeopardy.” Estep, an attorney for the alders, argued that the case should focus on legal questions, not second-order consequences. “We don’t know what’s going to happen” if the court decides in favor of the plaintiff, said Estep. For example, if the court orders the mayor to request Board of Alders approval for the contract post facto, the alders might decide in favor of Ricci, leaving the enhanced pension payments intact. If denied, Ricci could seek remedies in court. The judge was not convinced, arguing that his decision would wreak an “inevitable trickle-down effect on multiple parties” that are unrepresented. After the hearing, Mednick — an attorney for the alders, former Westville alder, and former city corporation counsel — told the Independent that Ricci had been dropped as a defendant so the case could focus on a narrow legal question: whether the mayor had violated local laws by signing a $386,659.92 contract in 2020 without Board of Alders approval. “Even if there was a determination” in the Board of Alders’ favor, “it would still require another action by the mayor before it would have any effect on Mr. Ricci,” Mednick told the Independent. According to Mednick, MetLife asked for the case to be dismissed against them and agreed to abide by the court’s ruling. Ricci “did not fight” the decision to remove him as a defendant. Mednick and Estep said they would need to consult with the Board of Alders before deciding upon next steps. Board of Alders President Tyisha Walker-Myers did not respond to a request for comment by the publication time of this article. Update: On Wednesday afternoon, Board of Alders Majority Leader Richard Furlow provided a comment on behalf of Board of Alders leadership. That statement acknowledges “today’s discretionary bench ruling in the Ricci matter, which was based on due process considerations rather than the substantive merits of the case. “While the ruling permits the City to proceed at this stage, it does not resolve the underlying legal issues before the court. The Board will review the court’s written decision once issued and is evaluating all available options, including appellate action.” That statement concludes by saying that the Board of Alders “remains committed to ensuring that its legislative authority is upheld and that all actions taken on behalf of the City are consistent with applicable law.” When asked about Wednesday’s decision, Ricci celebrated the victory with the following statement: “Since my retirement in 2020, I’ve faced three separate legal actions—all of which I decisively defeated: a labor board charge I overwhelmingly won, a lawsuit from former Assistant Fire Chief Orlando Marcano thrown out on summary judgment, and a final case of lawfare brought by the alders that has now been resolved. Each stemmed from the same root cause—the city’s violation of our civil rights in Ricci v. DeStefano.” “In every case, I was vindicated. The real cost, however, has fallen on taxpayers, who have been forced to bankroll these baseless, politically driven pursuits.” This article has been updated to include a statement from Board of Alders leadership. Thomas Breen contributed to this report. The post Judge Throws Out Alders-Vs.-City Lawsuit appeared first on New Haven Independent. ...read more read less