Case ID: f-appx_432/html/0024-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael M. BENDIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-2968-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 15, 2011.
    
      Scott M. Riemer, Riemer & Associates, LLC, New York, NY. (Joseph And, Riemer & Associates, New York, NY; Christopher E. Chang, Law Offices of Christopher E. Chang, New York, NY, on the brief), for Appellant.
    Byrne J. Decker, Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, ME, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Bendik appeals from a July 14, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, C.J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Hartford Life Insurance Company and denying Appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“In an ERISA action, we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on the administrative record de novo and apply the same legal standard as the district court.” Hobson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir.2009). “Summary judgment is appropriate only where the parties’ submissions show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fay v. Oxford Health Plan, 287 F.3d 96, 103 (2d Cir.2002). The district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Having conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.

We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.