Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Arthur K. Goldstein, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Group Insurance Plan for Administrative and Managementemployees of Fairchild Republic Company, Farmingdalefacility; Fairchild Industries Pension & Retirementcommittee, As Plan Fiduciary and As Plan Administrator;john Doe and Jane Doe, As Members of the Fairchildindustries Pension & Retirement Committee; Connecticut Lifeinsurance Co.; Fairchild Industries, Inc., Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 99 F.3d 101
Argued Oct. 15, 1996.Decided Nov. 4, 1996
Edgar Pauk, Legal Services for the Elderly, New York City (Robert L. Liebross, Denver, CO, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
David W. Silverman, New City, NY (Christopher P. Tirro, Granik Silverman, New City, NY; Ann K. Kandel, Hauppauge, NY, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1994), against the claimant's former employer, Fairchild Industries, Inc. ("Fairchild"), and the administrator of Fairchild's employee welfare benefit plan, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company ("CIGNA"). Arthur Goldstein appeals from the December 29, 1995, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, Judge) denying, on motion for summary judgment, his claim for benefits. After an earlier order by Judge Platt dismissing CIGNA as a party, Judge Gleeson ruled that Goldstein was not entitled to benefits because his active service had ended by reason of a layoff, rather than his alleged disability. Goldstein v. Group Insurance Plan for Admin. and Mgmt. Employees of Fairchild Republic Company, 940 F.Supp. 474 (E.D.N.Y.1995).
Goldstein appeals from both rulings. We affirm the judgment on Judge Gleeson's comprehensive opinion. To the extent that Goldstein seeks review of the dismissal of CIGNA, that issue is moot in light of Judge Gleeson's ruling.