Opinion
13326, 108196/08.
10-28-2014
Alexandre ANGÉ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sandra HOLLEY–ANGÉ, etc., Defendant–Respondent.
Law Offices of Stephanie R. Cooper, P.C., New York (Stephanie R. Cooper of counsel), for appellant. Millman Law Firm, White Plains (Paul M. Millman of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Stephanie R. Cooper, P.C., New York (Stephanie R. Cooper of counsel), for appellant.
Millman Law Firm, White Plains (Paul M. Millman of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 26, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and conversion, and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing those claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although we affirm Supreme Court's order, we do so on different grounds. As an initial matter, we reject defendant's contention that we are without subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's state law claims. Federal court jurisdiction over the issue of preemption under the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ) (ERISA) is not exclusive, and New York State courts routinely determine whether a particular claim is preempted by ERISA (see e.g. Kocourek v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 114 A.D.3d 567, 568, 981 N.Y.S.2d 392 [1st Dept.2014] ).
Plaintiff's claims were not preempted by ERISA, since plaintiff was neither a participant nor a beneficiary of an ERISA–regulated retirement plan, and thus lacked standing to assert his claims under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA (see e.g. Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement
Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 400 [3d Cir.2004], cert. denied 546 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 336, 163 L.Ed.2d 48 [2005] ). Further, plaintiff's claims did not seek “to remedy the denial of benefits under an ERISA–regulated pension plan” (Kocourek, 114 A.D.3d at 568, 981 N.Y.S.2d 392 ), and did not relate to the structure or administration of an ERISA plan (see Hayman–Chaffey v. Landy, 1996 WL 282051, *2, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7245, *6 [S.D.N.Y., May 28, 1996, No. 96–Civ–1900(BSJ) ] ).
Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his claims for unjust enrichment or money had and received and those claims were correctly dismissed, since, among other things, defendant's failure to turn over to plaintiff the retirement benefits that she received as a surviving spouse of her deceased husband's estate was not against equity and good conscience (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182, 919 N.Y.S.2d 465, 944 N.E.2d 1104 [2011] ; Matter of Witbeck, 245 A.D.2d 848, 850, 666 N.Y.S.2d 315 [3d Dept.1997] ). Nor did plaintiff establish the merits of his claim for conversion, since he demonstrated no superior right of possession of the retirement benefits (see Lucker v. Bayside Cemetery, 114 A.D.3d 162, 174, 979 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 24 N.Y. 901, 2014 WL 4357433 [2014] ).