Andujar v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andujar v. Lenox Hill Hospital

226 A.D.2d 179, 641 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3751

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 179 (Andujar v. Lenox Hill Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andujar v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 226 A.D.2d 179, 641 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Ord[180]*180er, Supreme Court, Queens County (Luther Dye, J.), entered on or about February 7, 1995, which denied defendant Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry’s ("JIB”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs medical malpractice and wrongful death claims, which are founded in tort and are premised on JIB’s vicarious liability for the negligence of its employees or agents, are not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) since the claims do not implicate the administration of the ERISA-qualified plan itself (Dukes v U.S. Healthcare, 57 F3d 350 [3d Cir], cert denied — US —, 116 S Ct 564; Pacificare of Okla. v Burrage, 59 F3d 151 [10th Cir]; see also, Lupo v Human Affairs Intl., 28 F3d 269 [2d Cir]). We have considered JIB’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ord[180]*180er, Supreme Court, Queens County (Luther Dye, J.), entered on or about February 7, 1995, which denied defendant Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry’s ("JIB”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs medical malpractice and wrongful death claims, which are founded in tort and are premised on JIB’s vicarious liability for the negligence of its employees or agents, are not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) since the claims do not implicate the administration of the ERISA-qualified plan itself (Dukes v U.S. Healthcare, 57 F3d 350 [3d Cir], cert denied — US —, 116 S Ct 564; Pacificare of Okla. v Burrage, 59 F3d 151 [10th Cir]; see also, Lupo v Human Affairs Intl., 28 F3d 269 [2d Cir]). We have considered JIB’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 179, 641 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andujar-v-lenox-hill-hospital-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack