Opinion ID: 780702
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Illegal Acts

Text: 18 Celardo's contention that violations of the VTL are mere traffic infractions that do not amount to illegal acts smacks of casuistry. The Trustees' broad discretion to interpret the Plan's terms can only be disturbed where they interpret the plan in a manner inconsistent with its plain words, or by their interpretation render some provisions of the plan superfluous.... O'Shea v. First Manhattan Co. Thrift Plan & Trust, 55 F.3d 109, 112 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Miles, 698 F.2d at 599). Here, the Trustees' interpretation of the phrase illegal acts was not unreasonable. While Celardo would have us hold that illegal means criminal, this interpretation contravenes the plain, common-sense meaning of illegal. Fay v. Oxford Health Plan, 287 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir.2002) (the terms of an ERISA plan should be accorded their plain meaning). The dictionary definition of illegal is contrary to or violating a law or rule or regulation or something else (as an established custom) having the force of law. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1126 (Philip Babcock Gove ed.1981). Traffic infractions prohibited by the VTL may reasonably be encompassed by this definition even if they are not considered crimes in New York. 19 Celardo emphasizes that all but two of the summonses issued after the accident were eventually dismissed when he pled guilty to the remaining two infractions: operating a vehicle with bald tires and operating an uninsured vehicle. The significance of this fact is lost on the Court when it is noted that Celardo admitted at trial that he was in fact guilty of each of the ten summonses that he was issued.