Court Opinion

ID: 6197720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-05 20:26:00.116313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:56:14.734806
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.

Reading section 10 of the welfare plan in light of the statement of "Dependant Coverage” in booklet issued to the members of the union, we conclude that third-party plaintiff’s son was a covered "Dependent” thereunder. The plan provides, inter alia, that a child of a member continues to be eligible for benefits until he reaches his 23d birthday, if he is a "full-time student working toward a degree at an accredited college or university” (§ 10, [b][3]). The booklet states simply that he must be "a full time student.” A full-time,, registered student in a high school, planning to go to college for a degree, is "working toward a degree at an accredited college or university” and comes within the scope of both the plan and the booklet. Indeed, in the case of third-party plaintiff’s son, at the time this action was pending in the lower court, he was a full-time student at Ramapo College of New Jersey (see, also, Weinberg v Insurance Co. of North Amer., 88 Misc 2d 82).
The judgment entered June 4, 1976 should be affirmed, with $25 costs.
Concur — Dudley, P. J., Riccobono and Tierney, JJ.