Jaffe v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaffe v. Cohen

248 A.D.2d 297, 670 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 25 and July 24, 1997, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief and granted defendants insurers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the insurance defendants owed no duty to plaintiff to monitor claims made by the dental defendants, his former associates, and we would add that even if there were such a duty, no facts are alleged showing how that duty was breached. We also agree with the IAS Court that many of plaintiffs claims are in any event preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 USC § 1144 [a]; see, Pilot Life Ins. Co. v Dedeaux, 481 US 41, 44-45, 47-48; Matter of Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v Tax Appeals Tribunal, 80 NY2d 44, 48). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 25 and July 24, 1997, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief and granted defendants insurers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the insurance defendants owed no duty to plaintiff to monitor claims made by the dental defendants, his former associates, and we would add that even if there were such a duty, no facts are alleged showing how that duty was breached. We also agree with the IAS Court that many of plaintiffs claims are in any event preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 USC § 1144 [a]; see, Pilot Life Ins. Co. v Dedeaux, 481 US 41, 44-45, 47-48; Matter of Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v Tax Appeals Tribunal, 80 NY2d 44, 48). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Jaffe v. Cohen, 248 A.D.2d 297, 670 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 297 (Jaffe v. Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related