Kampuries v. New York State Local Retirement Fund
1:25-cv-00341
| N.D.N.Y. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Andrew J. Kampuries, proceeding pro se, sued the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) and Chris Rhoads, alleging violations of rights regarding pension benefits.
- Plaintiff brought three claims: (1) violation of procedural due process due to lack of notice about a pension benefit change, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation by Rhoads, and (3) breach of fiduciary duty by NYSLRS.
- United States Magistrate Judge Katz recommended dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, finding all claims time-barred and factually insufficient.
- Plaintiff objected, but the objections reiterated original arguments rather than identifying errors in the Report and Recommendation.
- The District Court, on review, modified the Report and Recommendation only to correct the statute of limitations calculation for the fiduciary duty claim but nonetheless found all claims time-barred; all portions of the Report and Recommendation were adopted otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process violation | Did not receive notice of pension benefit change | Notice was proper/claim is time-barred | Claim time-barred; dismissed |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation | Rhoads lied, resulting in financial loss | No injury; claim not timely | Claim time-barred; dismissed |
| Breach of fiduciary duty | NYSLRS breached duties regarding benefits | Claim is untimely; no legal harm | Claim time-barred; dismissed |
| Leave to amend | Amendment would cure defects | Any amendment would be futile | Dismissal with prejudice; no leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Matana v. Merkin, 957 F. Supp. 2d 473 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (addresses statute of limitations and accrual rules for fraud)
- Kermanshah v. Kermanshah, 580 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (provides limitations periods for breach of fiduciary duty claims)
- A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (standard for district court review of magistrate judge's report)
- DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (adoption of magistrate's recommendations absent timely objection)
- N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (clear error review standard for general objections)