Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Administrative & Management Employees of Fairchild Republic Co., Farmingdale Facility

Second Circuit

Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Administrative & Management Employees of Fairchild Republic Co., Farmingdale Facility

99 F.3d 101

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 1996

DocketNo. 97, Docket 96-7083

StatusPublished

This text of 99 F.3d 101 (Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Administrative & Management Employees of Fairchild Republic Co., Farmingdale Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Administrative & Management Employees of Fairchild Republic Co., Farmingdale Facility, 99 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal concerns a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1994), against the claimant’s former employer, Fairchild Industries, Inc. (“Fairchild”), and the administrator of Fairchild’s employee welfare benefit plan, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“CIGNA”). Arthur Goldstein appeals from the December 29,1995, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge) denying, on motion for summary judgment, his claim for benefits. After an earlier order by Judge Platt dismissing CIG-NA as a party, Judge Gleeson ruled that Goldstein was not entitled to benefits because his active service had ended by reason of a layoff, rather than his alleged disability. Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Admin. and Mgmt. Employees of Fairchild Republic Company, 940 F.Supp. 474 (E.D.N.Y.1995).

Goldstein appeals from both rulings. We affirm the judgment on Judge Gleeson’s comprehensive opinion. To the extent that Gold-stein seeks review of the dismissal of CIG-NA, that issue is moot in light of Judge Gleeson’s ruling.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal concerns a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1994), against the claimant’s former employer, Fairchild Industries, Inc. (“Fairchild”), and the administrator of Fairchild’s employee welfare benefit plan, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“CIGNA”). Arthur Goldstein appeals from the December 29,1995, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge) denying, on motion for summary judgment, his claim for benefits. After an earlier order by Judge Platt dismissing CIG-NA as a party, Judge Gleeson ruled that Goldstein was not entitled to benefits because his active service had ended by reason of a layoff, rather than his alleged disability. Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Admin. and Mgmt. Employees of Fairchild Republic Company, 940 F.Supp. 474 (E.D.N.Y.1995).

Goldstein appeals from both rulings. We affirm the judgment on Judge Gleeson’s comprehensive opinion. To the extent that Gold-stein seeks review of the dismissal of CIG-NA, that issue is moot in light of Judge Gleeson’s ruling.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 F.3d 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-group-insurance-plan-for-administrative-management-employees-ca2-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack