BRORBY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant John H. Held appeals the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to appellant's former employer, Manufacturers Hanover Leasing Corporation (MHLC). Appellant's complaint alleges that MHLC discharged him after almost ten years of employment, in part to prevent him from attaining vested rights under MHLC's retirement plan in violation of § 510 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1140. The complaint seeks legal and equitable relief. The district court granted MHLC's summary judgment motion on the ground that the limitation period applicable to appellant's claim had expired. We review the grant of summary judgment under the same standards applied by the district court, Osgood v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988), and affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

FACTS

The salient facts are not in dispute. Mr. Held commenced employment with MHLC on February 3, 1975, and resigned on July 13, 1984, although his salary was continued until October 9 of that year. At all times Mr. Held performed his services for the corporation outside of the United States, first in Puerto Rico, and then in Brazil, Mexico, Korea, Indonesia, and Hong Kong. Shortly after arriving in Hong Kong, Mr. Held was informed by his supervisor that he would not be reassigned to another position. He tendered his resignation at that time. His discharge took effect in November 1984, one month before the vesting date for his pension benefits.

Mr. Held graduated from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1972 and claims to be a Colorado native. After leaving MHLC's employ, Mr. Held returned to Colorado, which he claims he had maintained as his domicile throughout his employment with MHLC. Appellant currently resides in Colorado.

Mr. Held filed his first complaint on July 25, 1988, just over four years after he resigned. His first complaint erroneously named Manufacturers Hanover Corporation as the defendant, and that complaint was amended to name MHLC on December 5, 1988. Mr. Held claimed that he was a participant in MHLC's pension plan, which qualifies as an "employee benefit plan" as defined in ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A). He further claimed that MHLC coerced him to resign from his position shortly before completion of the ten years of service required for a nonforfeitable vested right in accrued benefits in that plan. Mr. Held's complaint seeks an order enforcing his rights as a participant in the pension plan, a recovery of benefits due him under the plan, damages, and attorney fees and costs.

Mr. Held's claim arises in part under § 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge . . . a participant or beneficiary . . . for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan." In addition, § 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (the terms of which are applicable to enforcement of a claim under § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140), forms the basis of appellant's claim for benefits due him under the pension plan. See § 1132(a)(1)(B).

MHLC moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the action on the grounds that Mr. Held's claims were barred by the New York or Colorado statute of limitation concerning employment discrimination. The district court granted the motion on the grounds that New York law applied and that the three-year New York statute of limitation applicable to claims of employment discrimination barred the action.

ERISA does not expressly provide a limitation period for actions (including § 510 actions) brought under § 502. Because MHLC's headquarters and principal place of business are in New York, the district court determined that New York has the most significant relationship to the claim and thus that New York law applies. The district court further determined that the most analogous claim for relief under New York law is a claim for employment discrimination, which is barred after three years. District Court Order at 1 (citing N.Y.Civ.Prac.L. R. § 214(2) (McKinney Supp. 1989)). The court held that "Colorado has no interest in the subject matter of this litigation," and that the "place of business of the employer is the dominant factor." Id. The district judge concluded that plaintiff's claim was barred by New York law as of July 13, 1987.

ANALYSIS

MHLC contends that, because § 510 of ERISA does not provide a limitation period for claims arising thereunder, an analogous state statute of limitation must be applied. Appellee's Brief at 5 (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 n. 12, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1942 n. 12, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Gavalik v. Continental Can Co., 812 F.2d 834 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 979, 108 S.Ct. 495, 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987)). Mr. Held, on the other hand, poses the principle somewhat differently. He states that "where there is no specifically stated or otherwise relevant federal statute of limitations, the controlling period is the most appropriate one provided by state law." Appellant's Brief at 4 (citing Reed v. United Transp. Union, 488 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 621, 622-23, 102 L.Ed.2d 665 (1989)). This case presents not only a question of the most appropriate statute of limitation, but also a threshold choice-of-law question, i.e., what state's law should apply. Specifically, the parties dispute whether we should look to Colorado or New York state law for an applicable statute.

ERISA contains two limitation periods, neither of which applies by its express terms to appellant's claims in this case. Section 413, 29 U.S.C. § 1113, is applicable to violations of Part 4 of the Act ("Fiduciary Responsibility"), and § 4301, 29 U.S.C. § 1451, applies to multiemployer plans. Each statute provides two periods — six years and three years — keyed respectively to the date the cause of action arose and the date the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the cause of action.

29 U.S.C. § 1132 and 1140, under which appellant's claims arise, are codified in Part 5 of ERISA, "Administration and Enforcement," not in Part 4, "Fiduciary Responsibility," to which the limitation periods in § 1113 expressly pertain. It may be that MHLC is a fiduciary with respect to the company pension plan; however, there is no evidence in the record on that question. Similarly, there is no evidence that MHLC's pension plan is a multiemployer plan, such that 29 U.S.C. § 1451, which pertains to actions under Subtitle E of ERISA, "Special Provisions for Multiemployer Plans," would necessarily apply.

The Supreme Court has dealt recently and at length with the question of what statute of limitation governs a claim arising under federal law when the federal statute does not provide a specific limitation period. Reed v. United Transp. Union, 488 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 621, 102 L.Ed.2d 665 (1989). When a federal statute fails to prescribe a limitation period, the "general rule [is] that statutes of limitation are to be borrowed from state law." Reed, 109 S.Ct. at 625. However, the Court recognizes a "closely circumscribed exception to the general rule." Id. The Court "decline[s] to borrow a state statute of limitations only `when a rule from elsewhere in federal law clearly provides a closer analogy than available state statutes, and when the federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation make that rule a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking.'" Id. (quoting DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 172, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2294, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983)).

Although this case arguably provides an ideal context for considering whether adoption of an ERISA limitation period makes more sense than searching for an analogous state statute, we believe that inquiry is foreclosed to this panel by this circuit's decision in Trustees of the Wyoming Laborers Health Welfare Plan v. Morgen Oswood Constr. Co., 850 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1988). There we addressed the question what limitation period is applicable to an action under ERISA by trustees of employee benefit pension and insurance funds against an employer for delinquent contributions. The district court and a panel of this court considered several possibly applicable limitation periods from Wyoming state law as well as the limitation period in § 413 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1113. The district court concluded and we concurred that the "Wyoming ten-year statute of limitations for actions based on written contracts is the statute of limitations `most analogous' to the Trustees' ERISA action." 850 F.2d at 621.

Morgen Oswood, as the dissent suggests, arguably can be read as not deciding the precise issue presented here; i.e., whether an ERISA statute of limitation should be applied in lieu of an analogous state statute to a claim arising under ERISA § 510. As explained below, however, the majority conclude that the case does answer that question. First, we are persuaded that, in light of the Morgen Oswood panel's discussion of DelCostello, it must be assumed that the panel at least implicitly considered whether an ERISA statute of limitation was more analogous to a trustees' action for delinquent contributions than were the arguably analogous state statutes. It follows that in choosing a state statute, the panel must have answered that question in the negative.

Second, the majority disagree with the dissent's contention that the "underlying substantive rights" in this case and in Morgen Oswood are significantly different. In each case the "substantive rights" of concern are those of the employee. The principal purpose of ERISA is to protect employees' rights to benefits under a covered plan. Employers can interfere with those rights in numerous ways, including not making obligatory contributions (as in Morgen Oswood) or discharging an employee before he is fully vested in a plan (as in this case). We see no distinction between the substantive rights implicated in these two cases that is relevant to the task of determining the appropriate limitation period for the claims brought by Mr. Held. Thus, we consider ourselves bound by Morgen Oswood to apply an analogous state statute, in preference to an ERISA statute of limitation, to these ERISA claims for which Congress has not prescribed an express limitation period.

With respect to the threshold choice-of-law issue, Mr. Held contends that the district court erred in relying solely on § 6(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Law (2d ed. 1980) in choosing New York's statute of limitation. He asserts that instead the district court should have applied an analogous statute of limitation of the forum state, Colorado. Indeed, the Second and Fifth Circuits follow this bright-line rule. See Vigman v. Community Nat'l Bank Trust Co., 635 F.2d 455, 459 (5th Cir. 1981); Arneil v. Ramsey, 550 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1977). Mr. Held argues in the alternative that we should follow the Third and Sixth Circuits, which in cases such as this apply the bright-line rule unless application of the forum state's statute of limitation would frustrate the federal policy in question or work a severe hardship on the litigants. See Champion Int'l Corp. v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 779 F.2d 328, 333-34 (6th Cir. 1985); Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 602 F.2d 494, 507-08 (3d Cir. 1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 902, 100 S.Ct. 3040, 65 L.Ed.2d 1131 (1980). Mr. Held also suggests a third approach, that we follow the Ninth Circuit and "borrow the limitation period set by the state most connected with the federal claim." Chung v. Pomona Valley Community Hosp., 667 F.2d 788, 791 (9th Cir. 1982). According to Mr. Held, each of these approaches is preferable to the district court's reliance solely on § 6(2) of the Restatement because they avoid an unnecessary excursion into the choice-of-law quagmire on an issue that this circuit has deemed procedural. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Petersen, 770 F.2d 141, 142 (10th Cir. 1985). Mr. Held finally contends that following any of these approaches would result in our applying Colorado's statute of limitation in this case instead of New York's.

We do not address Mr. Held's final contention because we decline to adopt any of the approaches that Mr. Held suggests. We agree with the district court that § 6(2) lends some guidance in choosing the appropriate statute of limitation, but we reject the district court's exclusive reliance on that section. Instead, we adopt § 142 of the Restatement as the means of determining which state's statute of limitation applies when a federal statute that is the basis of a claim does not specify the appropriate limitation period. Section 142 provides:

Whether a claim will be maintained against the defense of the statute of limitations is determined under the principles stated in § 6. In general, unless the exceptional circumstances of the case make such a result unreasonable:

(1) The forum will apply its own statute of limitations barring the claim.

(2) The forum will apply its own statute of limitations permitting the claim unless:

(a) maintenance of the claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum; and

(b) the claim would be barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (Supp. 1988).

We prefer § 142 to the bright-line rule because simply applying the statute of limitation of the forum state would encourage forum shopping. Our adoption of the Restatement position, moreover, does not conflict with the exception to the bright-line test recognized by the Third and Sixth Circuits because we remain bound by Reed not to borrow a state's statute of limitation "`when a rule from elsewhere in federal law clearly provides a closer analogy than available state statutes, and when the federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation make that rule a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking.'" Reed, 109 S.Ct. at 625 (quoting DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 172, 103 S.Ct. at 2294). Finally, we find the Ninth Circuit's approach, which creates no presumption in favor of the application of the forum state's statute of limitations, inappropriate in this circuit where the statute of limitation is characterized as procedural for purposes of conflicts-of-law analysis. See Petersen, 770 F.2d at 142.

Applying § 142(2) to Mr. Held's claim, we agree with the district court that "New York has the most significant relationship to the claim in this case." MHLC at all times during Mr. Held's employment maintained its headquarters and principal place of business in New York, the decision not to continue Mr. Held's employment was made there, and Mr. Held's personnel records were maintained there. In contrast, Colorado has no interest in this matter other than that of forum to the litigation and an arguable, but tenuous, concern as Mr. Held's alleged domicile. Clearly, New York has "a more significant relationship" to one of the parties, MHLC, and to the "occurrence," the effective discharge of Mr. Held, than does Colorado. Arguably, New York's relationship to Mr. Held may also be more significant than was Colorado's during the period relevant to the action. Moreover, in our view, Colorado has "no substantial interest in Mr. Held's claim." Thus, we must next determine whether the applicable New York statute of limitation bars Mr. Held's claim under ERISA § 510.

Before proceeding with a consideration of the most analogous state statute, however, we must address a preliminary matter concerning the characterization of appellant's claims. The district court apparently assumed that plaintiff had a single cause of action that accrued on the date appellant tendered his letter of resignation, i.e., July 13, 1984. See District Court's Order at 1. We are of the conviction, however, that appellant has two distinct causes of action. If discharging him was "unlawful" under § 1140, plaintiff was entitled to bring (and did bring) an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, which authorizes a civil action "to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of [subchapter I of ERISA]" or "to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of [subchapter I of ERISA]." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Such an action is clearly one for equitable relief. But appellant is also entitled under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 to bring (and again, did bring) a civil action to "recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan." Id. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Thus appellant has two distinct causes of action and claims for relief under ERISA.

Admittedly, the parties' briefs emphasize Mr. Held's § 510 claim and give short shrift to the issue of Mr. Held's separate claim for benefits due under the plan. However, plaintiff clearly claimed such benefits in his complaint. Nowhere in his briefs or at oral argument did appellant concede that as a result of his premature discharge he lost his rights to all benefits under the company pension plan. The dissent mischaracterizes appellant's position in this regard. See Dissent at note 1. Rather, appellant stated in his complaint only that if his employment had continued he would have earned "a non-forfeitable right to 100% of accrued benefits." Thus, this case presents an example of the situation referred to in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), i.e., a "judgment . . . not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked." Clearly, the district court's order did not resolve all of Mr. Held's claims for relief. Nor has defendant borne its burden of proving that there are no issues of material fact with respect to this claim and that it is entitled as a matter of law to judgment on this claim.

Having concluded that appellant has two causes of action under the Act, we must next determine when each cause of action accrued before we can determine whether either or both claims are time-barred.

Determining when a particular cause of action accrues requires answering certain preliminary questions, in particular whether administrative remedies have been exhausted. Neither this circuit nor the Supreme Court has directly addressed the question whether ERISA contains an implicit exhaustion of remedies requirement. But several circuits have distinguished between actions brought to enforce a statutory right under ERISA (for example, claims for injunctive relief arising under § 510) and actions brought to recover benefits under a plan, with respect to the question whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required prior to seeking judicial relief.

The Eleventh Circuit in Mason v. Continental Group, Inc., 763 F.2d 1219 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1087, 106 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed.2d 902 (1986), and the Seventh Circuit in Kross v. Western Elec. Co., 701 F.2d 1238 (1983), have held that beneficiaries of an ERISA plan must exhaust internal plan remedies before suing plan fiduciaries on the basis of alleged violations of duties imposed by the statute.

In contrast, the Ninth Circuit in Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747 (1984), has held that a plaintiff alleging a statutory violation as opposed to a mere denial of benefits under an ERISA plan need not exhaust internal remedies. Amaro rejected the defendant company's claim that a § 510 ERISA claim is essentially "a contractual claim for a breach of an implied covenant of good faith." 724 F.2d at 749. The court also rejected the argument that a § 510 claim is one for "benefits under a collective-bargaining agreement." Id. Instead, the court held a § 510 "ERISA action is to enforce statutory rights designed to protect the employees from actions which interfere with their attainment of eligibility for [certain] benefits." Id. The court was "persuaded that in enacting section 510, Congress created a statutory right independent of any collectively bargained rights." Id. (citing Kross, 701 F.2d at 1242-43). The court further concluded that a participant in an employee benefit plan "is not required to exhaust grievance or arbitration procedures prior to bringing an action under Section 510 of ERISA." Id. at 752.

Similarly, in Zipf v. A.T. T., 799 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1986), the Third Circuit held that a plaintiff is "not required first to exhaust her benefit plan's internal procedures before bringing her claim [under ERISA § 510] that her employer fired her to prevent her from obtaining disability benefits." Id. at 894. The court reasoned that a "Section 510 claim asserts a statutory right which plan fiduciaries have no expertise in interpreting. Accordingly, one of the primary justifications for an exhaustion requirement in other contexts, deference to administrative expertise, is simply absent." Id. at 893. The court acknowledged, however, that cases might arise in which a § 510 claim is "so closely intertwined with a serious issue requiring interpretation of a benefit plan that a trial court could properly stay the statutory action pending resolution of the issue by the plan fiduciaries." Id. at 894 n. 6.

We agree with the Ninth and Third Circuits that a plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing an action under § 510 of ERISA. Here, appellant has clearly raised a claim under that statute, alleging in his complaint that a "purpose of the defendant in coercing the plaintiff's resignation was to prevent the plaintiff from receiving retirement benefits under the defendant's pension plan." Requiring appellant to press this claim with MHLC prior to bringing a legal action would serve little purpose. We conclude appellant's cause of action under § 510 arose (and the limitations clock began running) when MHLC allegedly "discharge[d] . . . [appellant] . . . for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which [appellant] may become entitled under the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1140.

Limiting the district court's ruling to only appellant's § 510 claim for injunctive relief, we agree that the "most analogous claim for relief under New York law is a claim for employment discrimination which is barred after three years under N Y C.P.R. § 214(2)." District Court's Order at 1; see also Murphy v. American Home Products Corp., 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86, 58 N.Y.2d 293 (1983) (holding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 214(2)). Thus, we agree with the district court that appellant's cause of action under § 510 arose when Mr. Held was constructively discharged on July 13, 1984, and was barred after July 14, 1987. We have already concluded that New York has a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence than Colorado, the forum state, and that maintenance of this claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum state.

We have also concluded that Mr. Held's claim under ERISA § 510 would be time-barred under New York law. Restatement § 142(2), therefore, requires us to apply New York's statute of limitation to this claim. Accordingly, summary judgment for MHLC with respect to this claim was proper.

We turn next to consider appellant's claim for benefits due him under the MHLC pension plan. Whether this claim is also time-barred depends on when the claim accrued and what statute of limitation is applicable. The accrual of a claim for benefits under the plan does not necessarily coincide with the timing of the employer's alleged violation of § 510, nor does the same New York statute necessarily govern both of appellant's claims.

"Uniformly, courts recognize that an ERISA cause of action accrues when an application for benefits is denied." Dameron v. Sinai Hospital, 595 F. Supp. 1404, 1413 (D.Md. 1984) (citing Jenkins v. Local 705, 713 F.2d 247, 254 (7th Cir. 1983); Paris v. Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of Howard B. Wolf, Inc., 637 F.2d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 836, 102 S.Ct. 140, 70 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981); Reiherzer v. Shannon, 581 F.2d 1266, 1272 (7th Cir. 1978); Oates v. Teamster Affiliates Pension Plan, 482 F. Supp. 481, 484 n. 7 (D.D.C. 1979)). See also Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593, 598 (2d Cir.) ("ERISA cause of action accrues, and the . . . limitations period begins to run, when there has been `a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiar[y]'") (citations omitted; emphasis in original), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 829, 104 S.Ct. 105, 78 L.Ed.2d 108 (1983). Therefore, exhaustion of administrative (i.e., company or plan-provided) remedies is an implicit prerequisite to seeking judicial relief. If the rule were otherwise, lawsuits likely would be — and should be — dismissed for lack of ripeness. See Paris, 637 F.2d at 361.

The record on appeal contains a letter from Mr. Held to Mr. Martin H. Zuckerman, E.V.P., Personnel Department, Manufacturers Hanover Corporation, dated November 20, 1986, in which Mr. Held stated: "Before initiating legal action, I would like to request a lump sum settlement of my retirement benefits from [MHLC]." Mr. Held's letter specified a pension amount he alleged he was entitled to and requested a written reply. We have found nothing in the record that indicates whether or when MHLC responded to this application for benefits. However, MHLC makes a cryptic reference to this letter in its Answer. ("[MHLC] [d]enies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint [i.e., that "plaintiff has written to the defendant requesting benefits owed to him under the plan" and that defendant "denied the plaintiff's request"], and refers to plaintiff's letter to Martin H. Zuckerman, dated November 20, 1986, for its contents.") Thus, MHLC does not deny the existence of Mr. Held's letter, but apparently disputes its significance.

Moreover, in its Answer MHLC also denies Held's allegation that he had "met all conditions precedent to filing this action," and asserts as an affirmative defense that Held had "failed to invoke or exhaust the Plan's administrative remedies prior to the commencement of this action." These questions — whether and when the company denied Mr. Held's application for benefits and whether Mr. Held has exhausted his remedies pursuant to the plan — present a genuine issue of material fact, resolution of which is crucial to the determination of when (or even whether) Mr. Held's cause of action for a recovery of benefits arose. Because the record does not enable us to answer these questions, we hold summary judgment for MHLC on appellant's claim for benefits is inappropriate at this time.

The purely legal issue of what statute of limitation is applicable to appellant's claim for benefits is nevertheless fairly raised by this appeal. We may forestall an additional excursion before this court if we address the question at this time. First, we note that the legislative history suggests Congress intended "actions brought under ERISA to be interpreted by the courts `in similar fashion to those brought under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947.'" H.R.Conf. Rep. No. 1280, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. Admin. News 4639, 5038, 5107, quoted in Morgen Oswood, 850 F.2d at 621. "Actions under section 301 of the [LMRA] have typically been analogized to actions for breach of contract." 850 F.2d at 621. cf. Robbins v. Iowa Road Builders Co., 828 F.2d 1348, 1353-54 (8th Cir. 1987) (adopting statute of limitation applicable to actions on a contract in preference to statute applicable to wage payment collection actions, and citing cases holding similarly), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1234, 108 S.Ct. 2899, 101 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988); Annotation, Limitations of Actions Applicable to Action by Trustees of Employee Benefit Plan to Enforce Delinquent Employer Contributions Under ERISA ( 29 USCS 1132(1)), 90 A.L.R.Fed. 374, 378 (ERISA claims commonly treated as non-"hybrid" § 301 LMRA claims, and state contract action limitation applied). But see Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. John Tinney Delivery Serv., Inc., 732 F.2d 319, 322-23 (3d Cir. 1984) (applying statute of limitation in Pennsylvania's wage payment and collection law). In Morgen Oswood this circuit held an action by pension fund trustees against an employer for delinquent contributions analogous to an action on a written contract. 850 F.2d at 620-21.

The New York statute of limitation applicable to actions on a contract has been applied to an ERISA action for benefits. In Miles, 698 F.2d at 595, 598, four employees and one former employee of Continental Can Co. sought a determination of their eligibility for pension benefits, and the former employee requested the court to order the company to pay him a pension benefit. The Second Circuit held that N.Y.Civ. Prac.L. R. § 213 is the "controlling limitations period." Subparagraph (2) of this statute provides that an "action upon a contractual obligation or liability express or implied" must be commenced within six years. Id. § 213(2). Although neither Miles nor Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Bd., 623 F.2d 196, 202 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1980), which Miles cites, provides any explanation of this choice of a statute of limitation, their holdings are consistent with the observation above — that cases typically hold that an ERISA action for benefits is analogous to a state-law action upon a contract. We conclude that the six-year limitation period in N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 213(2) applies to appellant's action for recovery of pension benefits and for damages.

Accordingly, the district court's decision is AFFIRMED with respect to Mr. Held's claim for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 and 1140, but is REVERSED with respect to Mr. Held's claim for recovery of benefits under § 1132 and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.