NY appeals court vacates order that held there is no duty to recognize foreign same-sex “marriages”
A ruling has issued in Funderburke v. NY State Dept. of Civil Service, No.2006-07589 (N.Y. App. Div. March 25, 2008). The appellate division summarizes the facts:
The plaintiff is a retired school teacher previously employed by the defendant Uniondale Union Free School District (hereinafter the District). In 2004, he and his same-sex partner of many years legally married in Ontario, Canada. The plaintiff then requested spousal health and dental insurance coverage from the District for his spouse. After the District denied the request, the plaintiff commenced this action against the District and the New York State Department of Civil Service (hereinafter the DCS), as well as certain District and DCS officials and employees, seeking compensatory and injunctive relief and a declaration that the benefits had been illegally denied. The Supreme Court granted the respective motions of the District and its officials and employees, and the DCS and its officials and employees, for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals.
During the pendency of the appeal, the DCS changed its policy regarding recognition of foreign same-sex marriages. The DCS now requires public employers within its jurisdiction to provide full spousal benefits to same-sex couples validly married in another jurisdiction, and requires all members of its health insurance program, including the District, to provide such benefits. The DCS further committed to the payment of out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff in obtaining health coverage for his spouse from the time of the plaintiff’s application for spousal health coverage. On May 3, 2007, the District notified the plaintiff that his spouse would be eligible to enroll in the Empire Plan, which is one of the medical and health insurance plans made available to employees of the State and its subdivisions. The District further changed its eligibility policy for its dental plan pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Education of the District, notified the plaintiff of the change, and committed to reimburse him the maximum amount of dental coverage which would have been available to his spouse had he been enrolled in the program since the time that the initial coverage request was made.
The appellate division dismissed the case on mootness grounds since the District had acquiesced to plaintiff’s demands. Unfortunately, the appellate division also vacated the lower ruling which held that the district had no duty to recognize the Canadian same-sex “marriage.” The appellate division justified its action as follows:
. . . the Supreme Court’s orders could spawn adverse legal consequences for the plaintiff or be used as precedent in future cases, causing confusion of the legal issues in this area of the law (cf. Martinez v County of Monroe, AD3d, 2008 NY Slip Op 00909 [4th Dept 2008])
Lambda Legal has released a press release on the ruling. It indicates:
The decision from the appellate court wipes the lower court ruling off the books,” said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal.
One Comment
In this case, just as in smokers cases, their premiums need to be high due to the threat of HIV. No exceptions….