Connors v. Howard Stores Corp.
John P. Connors v. Howard Stores Corporation
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
'In an action by a former employee against bis corporate employer and -the trustees of a “Retirement Plan” for its employees, to declare the plaintiff’s rights under said Plan, and for incidental relief, the plaintiff appeals, -as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 11, 1962 after a non-jury trial upon the opinion-decision of ia Special Referee, as “ fixed plaintiff’s rights under -the Plan as of .the date of actual retirement ” .and as “ denied him the right to recover the employer’s contributions to the Plan,” amounting to $9,092.17, which had been made for his .account, Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff voluntarily left his employment on January 22, 1960, prior to having attained the age for retirement under the Plan, which had been established in 1950. Before such termination of his employment the plaintiff had been notified by the employer that, pursuant to its reserved right to amend the Plan and effective December 1, 1959, it bad eliminated a provision (which it had -previously adopted Dec. 1, 1958) under which an employee could resign prior to the -age for retirement and obtain la cash payment >of his own -contributions plus the employer’s contributions to the fund applicable to him, In our -opinion, under -the circumstances here, the employer’s exercise of its reserved power to amend was effective to prevent the plaintiff from -obtaining a vested or contractual right -to the employer’s -prior contributions to the fund. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that exercise of “reserved power to amend” prior to plaintiffs retirement, was effective to eliminate non-vested benefit)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Evo v. Jomac, Inc.
- T. C. Boase, James C. Carlin, George L. Smith and Alex Watson, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lee Rubber & Tire Corporation v. Daniel N. Handy, Robert M. Brasaemle, Elden E. Leach, and Arthur H. Nellen Ernest M. Ikirt, Intervening Leo R. Howley, Ralph W. Hawkins and Lawrence S
- Boase v. Lee Rubber & Tire Corp.
- Pereira v. Cogan
- Mirigliano v. Local 259, United Automobile Workers
Most recent
- Pereira v. Cogan
- Mirigliano v. Local 259, United Automobile Workers
- Evo v. Jomac, Inc.
- T. C. Boase, James C. Carlin, George L. Smith and Alex Watson, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lee Rubber & Tire Corporation v. Daniel N. Handy, Robert M. Brasaemle, Elden E. Leach, and Arthur H. Nellen Ernest M. Ikirt, Intervening Leo R. Howley, Ralph W. Hawkins and Lawrence S
- Boase v. Lee Rubber & Tire Corp.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.