O'Neill v. City of Auburn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. City of Auburn

249 A.D.2d 948, 671 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5054

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 948 (O'Neill v. City of Auburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neill v. City of Auburn, 249 A.D.2d 948, 671 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and ordering respondents to provide petitioner Katheryn O’Neill with health insurance benefits. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the Management Ordinance at issue does not provide coverage for the spouse of a former employee of the City of Auburn when the marriage occurred after the date of termination or retirement. Rather, the ordinance requires respondents to provide former employees with a continuation of the benefits to which they were entitled when they left their employment. Because petitioner Michael O’Neill was unmarried when he left his employment with respondent City of Auburn, he is entitled only to individual coverage. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and ordering respondents to provide petitioner Katheryn O’Neill with health insurance benefits. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the Management Ordinance at issue does not provide coverage for the spouse of a former employee of the City of Auburn when the marriage occurred after the date of termination or retirement. Rather, the ordinance requires respondents to provide former employees with a continuation of the benefits to which they were entitled when they left their employment. Because petitioner Michael O’Neill was unmarried when he left his employment with respondent City of Auburn, he is entitled only to individual coverage. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 948, 671 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-city-of-auburn-nyappdiv-1998.