Giblin v. Vill. of Johnson City

• Decision Date: 15 July 2010
• Citation: 906 N.Y.S.2d 157,75 A.D.3d 887
• Parties: In the Matter of William GIBLIN et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF JOHNSON CITY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

906 N.Y.S.2d 157
75 A.D.3d 887

In the Matter of William GIBLIN et al., Respondents,
v.
VILLAGE OF JOHNSON CITY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

July 15, 2010.

906 N.Y.S.2d 158

Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P., Binghamton (Robert H. McKertich of counsel), for appellant.

Hinman, Howard & Kattell, L.L.P., Binghamton (Paul T. Sheppard of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., ROSE, STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

McCARTHY, J.

75 A.D.3d 887

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered October 6, 2009 in Broome County, which granted petitioner's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to annul a determination of respondent denying health insurance benefits to petitioner Patricia Giblin, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

Petitioner William Giblin (hereinafter petitioner) was employed by respondent as a firefighter. When he retired, he received family coverage health insurance benefits for himself and his then-wife pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) in effect between respondent and petitioner's firefighters' union. The relevant provision of the CBA provided that "[a]ll present retirees of the Fire Department and all members who retire in the future shall continue to receive Blue Cross, Blue Shield Major Medical Insurance coverage for themselves and

906 N.Y.S.2d 159

their dependents (or comparable coverage as may then be in effect)." On February 26, 2009, petitioner and his ex-wife were divorced. Coverage for the ex-wife automatically terminated upon divorce and respondent terminated petitioner's family health insurance plan, switching him to an individual coverage plan. On March 15, 2009, petitioner married petitioner Patricia Giblin (hereinafter Giblin). When petitioners requested that Giblin be enrolled in respondent's health insurance plan as petitioner's dependent, respondent informed them that petitioner no longer had family coverage and was not entitled to change his plan to family coverage.

Petitioners commenced this combined action and

75 A.D.3d 888

CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, among other things, to annul respondent's determination and a declaration that respondent was required to provide health insurance coverage to Giblin. Supreme Court, considering only these portions of the action and proceeding, annulled respondent's denial of petitioners' request and directed respondent...