Bankers Trust Co. v. Cusumano

177 A.D.2d 450, 576 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18038
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 450 (Bankers Trust Co. v. Cusumano) 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
Bankers Trust Co. v. Cusumano, 177 A.D.2d 450, 576 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered April 2, 1991, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant Benjamin Cusumano’s motion for leave to amend his pleading so as to increase the ad damnum clause, and to assert a claim for attorneys’ fees against plaintiff, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA; 29 USC § 1132 [g]), is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Leave to amend may be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law. (Bank Leumi Trust Co. v D'Evori Intl., 163 AD2d 26, 28.) Appellant’s proposed amendment increasing the ad damnum clauses of his pleadings so as to reflect accretion to decedent’s account from date of death to the present is palpably without merit, since paragraph 7.7 of the plan expressly limits the distribution, upon death, to "the amount to the credit of [decedent’s] [451]*451account as of the last day of the calendar month in which [decedent’s] death occurs”. Appellant, as a claimed plan "beneficiary”, has no right to elect a stock rather than cash distribution, as would a plan "participant” upon termination under paragraph 7.10 of the plan. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying appellant leave to assert a claim for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 USC § 1132 (g). There has been no demonstration of bad faith on plaintiff’s part, and no purpose would be served by allowing such an award (see, Dixon v Seafarers’ Welfare Plan, 878 F2d 1411). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Related

Gordon v. Oster
36 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Davis & Davis, P. C. v. Morson
286 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Hogan
196 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 A.D.2d 450, 576 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankers-trust-co-v-cusumano-nyappdiv-1991.