Breese v. Morris Distributing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breese v. Morris Distributing Co.

144 A.D.2d 962, 534 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14448

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.2d 962 (Breese v. Morris Distributing Co.) 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

Breese v. Morris Distributing Co., 144 A.D.2d 962, 534 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs seek, in part, civil penalties and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 USC § 1001 et seq. [ERISA]). Such claims lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal courts (29 USC § 1132 [e]; Retail Shoe Health Commn. v Reminick, 62 NY2d 173, cert denied sub nom. Reminick v Maltz, 471 US 1022). We modify the order to add a provision that defendants are granted summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action to the extent that it seeks civil penalties and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of ERISA, and we otherwise affirm. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs seek, in part, civil penalties and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 USC § 1001 et seq. [ERISA]). Such claims lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal courts (29 USC § 1132 [e]; Retail Shoe Health Commn. v Reminick, 62 NY2d 173, cert denied sub nom. Reminick v Maltz, 471 US 1022). We modify the order to add a provision that defendants are granted summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action to the extent that it seeks civil penalties and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of ERISA, and we otherwise affirm. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 962, 534 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breese-v-morris-distributing-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack