Pasternack v. Diamond
| Decision Date | 16 April 1957 |
| Citation | 161 N.Y.S.2d 277,3 A.D.2d 422 |
| Parties | , 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2055, 32 Lab.Cas. P 70,649 Louis PASTERNACK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Irving DIAMOND, Maurice Lifton, A. S. Wichtel, Sam H. Lifton, Harry Silverman, Joseph Bialer, Jack Wieselberg, Simon Gothelf, Louis Kaplan, Harry Lichtenstein, Isidore Tabakin, Harry Sobel and Herman Gray, as Trustees of the Luggage Workers Union Retirement Fund, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Isadore Katz, New York City, of counsel (Elias Lieberman, New York City, with him on the brief; Lieberman, Katz & Aronson, New York City, attorneys), for defendants-appellants.
Arthur A. Grutman, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before PECK, P. J., and BREITEL, FRANK, VALENTE and McNALLY, JJ.
In this equity action to compel the defendants, trustees of a pension fund, to make retirement payments to the plaintiff and for a money judgment for accrued payments, judgment was entered for the plaintiff after trial.
The complaint, in essence, alleges a breach of contract; to wit, a trust agreement providing for retirement benefits for superannuated members of a labor union. The Board of Trustees found that the plaintiff had failed to qualify as eligible for retirement benefits because he had withdrawn from the industry and had not been continuously employed for the minimum period of 15 years.
The plaintiff's action, if intended to be considered on the theory of a breach of contract, must fail because the trust agreement provides (Article VII, Sec. 1): 'The decision of the Board of Trustees on such review shall be final and binding'. The plaintiff is bound by the contract. Duffy Bros., Inc., v. Bing & Bing, Inc., 217 App.Div. 10, 13 et seq., 215 N.Y.S. 755, 758.
The plaintiff can fare no better if we treat the matter as a judicial review of the Board's determination. The record contains proof sufficient to sustain the Board's action in denying plaintiff's application for a pension. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trustees on the disputed factual issues. Matter of Wilkins, 169 N.Y. 494, 496-497, 62 N.E. 575, 576; Matter of Campe Corp. (Pacific Mills), 275 App.Div. 634, 92 N.Y.S.2d 347; Doobin v. Kelly, 5 Misc.2d 123, 86 N.Y.S.2d 555. Under the circumstances, we must reverse the finding of the learned trial court that the 'trustees, arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably refused to pay retirement benefits to the plaintiff.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarnoff v. American Home Products Corp.
... ... Cina, 75 A.D.2d 470, 429 N.Y.S.2d 936 (1980), aff'd without opinion, 54 N.Y.2d 894, 429 N.E.2d 425, 444 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1981); Pasternack ... Page 1085 ... v. Diamond, 3 A.D.2d 422, 161 N.Y.S.2d 277 (1957) (per curiam), aff'd without opinion, 5 N.Y.2d 770, 154 N.E.2d 141, 179 ... ...
-
Barish v. UMWA Health & Retirement Fund
...case. 4 See, e.g., Huber v. Casablanca Industries, Inc., 916 F.2d 85, 89 (3d Cir.1990) (arbitration); Pasternack v. Diamond, 3 A.D.2d 422, 161 N.Y.S.2d 277 (App.Div. 1st Dep't 1957). This court has found no cases requiring a trust instrument to grant discretion on factual matters as a prere......
-
Mitzner v. Jarcho
...trustees may not arbitrarily and capriciously deny benefits (Roark v. Lewis, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 401 F.2d 425; Pasternack v. Diamond, 3 A.D.2d 422, 161 N.Y.S.2d 277, aff'd, 5 N.Y.2d 770, 179 N.Y.S.2d 864, 154 N.E.2d 141), their actions must be measured by balancing the duty owed to the re......
-
Gitelson v. Du Pont
...faith, or arrived at by fraud or arbitrary action. The same reasoning has been adopted by this court in Pasternack v. Diamond, 3 A.D.2d 422, 423, 161 N.Y.S.2d 277, 278 (1st Dept.), affd. 5 N.Y.2d 770, 179 N.Y.S.2d 864, 154 N.E.2d 141 and in cases in our courts, as well as in those of other ......