Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

149 A.D.2d 910

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 910 (Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.) 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

Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 149 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unani[911]*911mously affirmed with costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with the trial court’s determination that the plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs rule-of-65 pension benefits claim because defendant failed to advise plaintiff of his rights and obligations under the pension plan. We note, however, that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v Bruch (489 US —, 103 L Ed 2d 80), the trial court’s determination should have been based on a de novo review. Under this standard, the result reached by the trial court is clearly warranted. Since plaintiff was the prevailing party, the award of attorney’s fees was proper (see, 29 USC § 1132 [g]; Ford v New York Cent. Teamsters Pension Fund, 506 F Supp 180, affd 642 F2d 664). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—pension benefits.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unani[911]*911mously affirmed with costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with the trial court’s determination that the plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs rule-of-65 pension benefits claim because defendant failed to advise plaintiff of his rights and obligations under the pension plan. We note, however, that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v Bruch (489 US —, 103 L Ed 2d 80), the trial court’s determination should have been based on a de novo review. Under this standard, the result reached by the trial court is clearly warranted. Since plaintiff was the prevailing party, the award of attorney’s fees was proper (see, 29 USC § 1132 [g]; Ford v New York Cent. Teamsters Pension Fund, 506 F Supp 180, affd 642 F2d 664). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—pension benefits.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piatko-v-bethlehem-steel-corp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack