¶1Order 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 § 1001et 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.
144 A.D.2d 962
Breese v. Morris Distributing Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 1988
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1988-11-15
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2006
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1988-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →