From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 7, 1999
267 A.D.2d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 7, 1999

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 under insured 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.

Robert M. Ginsberg, for plaintiff-appellant.

Wayne M. Rubin, for defendants.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, TOM, MAZZARELLI, SAXE, JJ.


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 A.D.2d 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.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 7, 1999
267 A.D.2d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Ortiz v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 7, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 370

Citing Cases

Progressive Speciality Ins. Co. v. to Stay the Arbitration Sought to Be Had By Stephen Alexis

In its reply submissions, Petitioners now concede that Respondent Gwen Alexis is entitled to pursue her claim…