Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority

267 A.D.2d 33, 699 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12635

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 33 (Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority, 267 A.D.2d 33, 699 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about January 20, 1999, which, in an action for, inter alia, a declaration that plaintiff is covered under the underinsured provisions of Hector Marquez’s automobile policy, granted defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff is not so covered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The supplementary uninsured motorist clause in issue covers the named insured and “while residents of the same household, [the named insured’s] spouse and * * * relatives”. Even if the word “spouse” could be understood to include same-sex partners living together in a spousal-type relationship, plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact as to whether such was the nature of his relationship with the named insured (cf., 390 W. End Assocs. v Wildfoerster, 241 AD2d 402). We also reject plaintiff’s argument that he qualifies under the portion of the clause covering “relatives”, given the structure of the clause and the sexual aspect of the relationship. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about January 20, 1999, which, in an action for, inter alia, a declaration that plaintiff is covered under the underinsured provisions of Hector Marquez’s automobile policy, granted defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff is not so covered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The supplementary uninsured motorist clause in issue covers the named insured and “while residents of the same household, [the named insured’s] spouse and * * * relatives”. Even if the word “spouse” could be understood to include same-sex partners living together in a spousal-type relationship, plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact as to whether such was the nature of his relationship with the named insured (cf., 390 W. End Assocs. v Wildfoerster, 241 AD2d 402). We also reject plaintiff’s argument that he qualifies under the portion of the clause covering “relatives”, given the structure of the clause and the sexual aspect of the relationship. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 33, 699 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack