facts indicate that the administrator was influenced by a conflict. The fact that Attorney Reice did not respond to the plaintiffs letters requesting a review is inapposite; the claim had already been denied by Mr. Dennis Jones, a pension specialist, prior to referral to Attorney Reice. Also, the timing of the amendment to the pension plan alone, without more, is insufficient for the court to impute a sinister motive to the defendant. Thus, plaintiff is left with the unextraordinary evidence that defendant and administrator were one in the same, and that the parties were at odds, which does not convince the court that the decision to deny benefits to plaintiff was in fact motivated by a conflict of interest. See Boesel v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 62 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1030 (W.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>); but see Sullivan, 82 F.3d at 1256-57
holding that a common employer and administrator does not necessarily influence the administrators decision recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them holding that under erisa a plan administrators decision to deny an employee longterm disability benefits is arbitrary and capricious if the administrator ignores favorable evidence  and selectively reviews the evidence it does consider