NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home page is: https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/supreme-court THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Strafford No. 2021-0244 DANIEL J. BARUFALDI v. CITY OF DOVER Argued: January 11, 2022 Opinion Issued: September 9, 2022 Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C., of Concord (Benjamin T. King on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff. Joshua M. Wyatt, city attorney, and Jennifer Perez, deputy city attorney, of Dover (Joshua M. Wyatt and Jennifer Perez on the brief, and Joshua M. Wyatt orally), for the defendant. HANTZ MARCONI, J. The plaintiff, Daniel J. Barufaldi, appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Howard, J.) dismissing his complaint against the defendant, the City of Dover. The plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that: (1) declaratory judgment was not an available theory of relief; and (2) the plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. We affirm. I The following facts are derived from the plaintiff’s complaint and accompanying documentation and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this appeal. See Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708, 711 (2010). The plaintiff was first hired as the Director of Economic Development for the Dover Business and Industry Development Authority (DBIDA) for a fixed term from March 2009 through February 2012. As a condition of his employment with DBIDA, the plaintiff was required to waive participation in the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS). After his initial term of employment expired in 2012, the plaintiff was reappointed for one-year extensions until 2017. In 2017, the City created a new Director of Economic Development position and appointed the plaintiff to the position. Prior to executing a new employment agreement, the plaintiff asked the Dover City Manager if he would now be eligible to participate in the NHRS. The Dover City Manager informed the plaintiff that he was not eligible for enrollment in the NHRS because his employment contract was for “a fixed time period.” Around March 2020, the plaintiff contacted the NHRS to inquire about his eligibility for enrollment. In July 2020, the NHRS notified the City that it was obligated to enroll the plaintiff in the NHRS. The City subsequently enrolled the plaintiff in the NHRS prospectively. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a “request for cost calculation to purchase service credit” because of “employer enrollment oversight.” (Capitalization omitted.) The NHRS administratively reviewed the request and determined, pursuant to RSA 100-A:3, VI(d)(1), that the plaintiff was partially at fault for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals