DUNCAN v. CIGNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 10-CV-1164 (SJF)(ARL). (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20120131b32
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, District Judge. On March 15, 2010, plaintiff Joseph E. Duncan ("plaintiff' or "Duncan") commenced this action against CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York ("defendant" or "CLICNY") pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), alleging that defendant failed to pay him long term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan. By order dated December 30, 2011, the Court adopted the Report and R
Summary: ORDER SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, District Judge. On March 15, 2010, plaintiff Joseph E. Duncan ("plaintiff' or "Duncan") commenced this action against CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York ("defendant" or "CLICNY") pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), alleging that defendant failed to pay him long term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan. By order dated December 30, 2011, the Court adopted the Report and Re..
More
ORDER
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.
On March 15, 2010, plaintiff Joseph E. Duncan ("plaintiff' or "Duncan") commenced this action against CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York ("defendant" or "CLICNY") pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), alleging that defendant failed to pay him long term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan. By order dated December 30, 2011, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. [Docket Entry No. 99]. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal. [Docket Entry No. 101].
Before the Court is plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [Docket Entry No. 102]. Upon review of plaintiffs submissions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), the Court finds that plaintiff qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
