the Supreme Court, in Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 248-49, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993), held that “other appropriate equitable relief’ under this provision encompasses only those remedies typically available in equity (e.g., injunction, mandamus, and restitution) and not compensatory damages. See also Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d 1004, 1011 (2d Cir.1993) (“Money damages are generally unavailable under” Section 1132(a)(3)). Because the compensatory nature of Plaintiffs claim precludes relief under Section 1132(a)(3)(B), the Court construes this claim as having been brought under Section 1132(a)(1)(B). See, e.g., Jordan v. Retirement Comm. of the Contributory Defined Benefit Retirement Plan at Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 875 F.Supp. 125, 127 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>). Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v.
holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under  1132a1b holding that rfra provides no waiver of governmental immunity  as a result the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under which he can recover the monetary damages he seeks holding that plaintiff who has coyly avoided identifying that section of erisa under which he pursues his claim for additional interest on a plans award of underpayments can obtain the relief he seeks if at all only under section 1132a1b  holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa