English v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

English v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc.

52 A.D.2d 767, 382 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12530

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

DecidedMay 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 767 (English v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc.) 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

English v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 767, 382 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 27, 1976, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for an advisory jury denied, with $40 costs and disbursements to appellants. The suit is for declaratory judgment in respect of plaintiff’s rights under the pension plan of his former employer after he had changed employment. The issue was whether plaintiff had exhausted his remedies under the plan and whether a final determination of his rights thereunder had been made by its administrators. It is claimed that plaintiff started this action prematurely without awaiting such a determination. There was no need for an advisory jury and it was thus an abuse of discretion for it to have been ordered. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 27, 1976, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and plaintiff-respondent’s motion for an advisory jury denied, with $40 costs and disbursements to appellants. The suit is for declaratory judgment in respect of plaintiff’s rights under the pension plan of his former employer after he had changed employment. The issue was whether plaintiff had exhausted his remedies under the plan and whether a final determination of his rights thereunder had been made by its administrators. It is claimed that plaintiff started this action prematurely without awaiting such a determination. There was no need for an advisory jury and it was thus an abuse of discretion for it to have been ordered. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 767, 382 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-u-s-plywood-champion-papers-inc-nyappdiv-1976.