party,” the statute also contains a clear and highly relevant exception: “except where there is a statutory right of reimbursement.” Id. In other words, where there is such a statutory right of reimbursement, then Section 5-335’s limitations will not apply. Here, there is a right of reimbursement expressly stated in the ERISA-governed plans. Although plaintiffs challenge this point, taking the position at oral argument that any such right arises under the contract between plaintiffs and defendants, and not under ERISA, the Court disagrees. (See Oral Arg. Jan. 22, 2013.) The right of reimbursement contained in the ERISA-governed Plans is enforced by means of ERISA. See Mittenthal v. N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Med., No. 106332/09, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1358, at *6 (Sup.Ct. Mar. 26, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because the exception applies, N.Y. GOL
holding that statute related to erisa plans pursuant to  514a because it prohibited plans from being structured in a manner requiring reimbursement in the event of a recovery from a third party holding that ny gol  5335 does not apply to erisa plans because of erisas statutory right of reimbursement holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language