1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.Y.3d
  4. 7 N.Y.3d
  5. 7 N.Y.3d 510 (2006)
 

CATHOLIC CHARITIES v. SERIO

7 N.Y.3d 510 (2006)

859 N.E.2d 459

825 N.Y.S.2d 653

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANY et al., Appellants, v. GREGORY V. SERIO, as Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided October 19, 2006.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Tobin & Dempf LLP, Albany (Michael L. Costello and Brian R. Haak of counsel), and Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C. (Kevin T. Baine of counsel), for appellants.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Shaifali Puri, Caitlin J. Halligan, Daniel Smirlock and Lisa Landau of counsel), for respondent.

Marc D. Stern, New York City, for American Jewish Congress and another, amici curiae.

Elisabeth Ryden Benjamin, New York City, Galen Leigh Sherwin, Arthur N. Heisenberg, Julie Sternberg and Diana Kasdan for New York Civil Liberties Union and another, amici curiae.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Kimberly A. Parker and Ilona R. Cohen of counsel), for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, New York District, and others, amici curiae.

Wingate, Kearney & Cullen, Brooklyn (Kevin M. Kearney of counsel), Mark E. Chopko, Washington, D.C., and Michael F. Moses for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and others, amici curiae.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., New York City (Eve C. Gartner and Jennifer Sandman of counsel), for American Jewish Committee and others, amici curiae.

Winston & Strawn LLP, New York City and Washington, D.C. (Piero A. Tozzi, Gene C. Schaerr and Steffen N. Johnson of counsel), for Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., and another, amici curiae.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur; Judge PIGOTT taking no part.

OPINION OF THE COURT

R.S. SMITH, J.

Plaintiffs challenge the validity of legislation requiring health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs to include coverage for contraception. Plaintiffs assert that the provisions they challenge violate their rights under the religion clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We hold that the legislation, as applied to these plaintiffs, is valid.

The Challenged Legislation

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases