You are here: / / UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S...
,

UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the provisions of a stipulated order in a divorce proceeding (section 6.3)  providing that plaintiff would pay for medical insurance for a child (T.D.) for as long as coverage was available under the employer’s family plan were unambiguous and must be enforced. Because the “Age 29” law allowed the child to remain covered by plaintiff’s employer’s plan until age 29. plaintiff was obligated to pay for that coverage. The argument that the provision was ambiguous allowing extrinsic evidence that the parties contemplated only the Affordable Care Act’s cut-off at age 26 was rejected: The “Age 29” act was passed before the issuance of the stipulated order:

… [T]he practical and reasonable interpretation of § 6.3 is that, to the extent plaintiff can maintain health insurance for T.D. through his employer, he is required to do so as long as any relevant law permits coverage for T.D. As he acknowledges in his brief (and as the evidence he submitted in opposition to the motion establishes), T.D. has coverage under the same health insurance plan provided by plaintiff’s employer to its employees. Thus, by virtue of the fact that plaintiff has health insurance through his employer, Age 29 Law coverage is available to T.D. B.D. v E.D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03971, First Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Here the stipulated order entered in the divorce proceedings required plaintiff to provide medical insurance to the child as long as the child could be covered by law under the employer’s plan. The Age 29 Law allowed coverage until age 29. The argument that the stipulated order was ambiguous allowing extrinsic proof that the parties contemplated only the age 26 cut-off under the Affordable Care Act was rejected.

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE INVOICES FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES WERE “REASONABLE;” THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ACCOUNT-STATED ACTION IS WHETHER THE CLIENT OBJECTED TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE INVOICES (FIRST DEPT).
KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER, GOTTWALD, HAD DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY ABUSED HER; GOTTWALD WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS DEFAMATION ACTION; GOTTWALD DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A GENERAL-PURPOSE OR LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting of Defendant’s Request to Have the Colloquy Read to the Jury Over Defense Counsel’s Objection Deprived Defendant of His Right To Counsel
SUIT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF AN ASSET OWNED NEARLY ENTIRELY BY BANKRUPT LEHMAN BROTHERS DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT, ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Detective’s Strongly Urging Defendant to Make a Statement Did Not Render Statement Involuntary
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MAILING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE IS... PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER’S ABSCONDING FROM SUPERVISION IS A NON-TECHNICAL...