From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 14, 1989
149 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 14, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously 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 plaintiff's 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 U.S.C. § 1132 [g]; Ford v. New York Cent. Teamsters Pension Fund, 506 F. Supp. 180, affd 642 F.2d 664).


Summaries of

Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 14, 1989
149 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Piatko v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JOHN W. PIATKO, Respondent, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 14, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 47