Hardy v. Adam Rose Retirement Plan
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Pooler, Hall, Carney
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- New York
- Circuit
- Second Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that an annuity owned by Adam Rose and naming Hardy as beneficiary did not constitute an 'employee benefit plan' under ERISA because it lacked the administrative complexity required by ERISA standards.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.