12‐3665 Tritt v. Automatic Data Processing Inc. Long Term Disability Plan, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 25th day of September, two thousand thirteen. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 RALPH K. WINTER, 7 JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Suellen Seidner Tritt, 13 14 Plaintiff‐Appellant, 15 16 v. 12‐3665 17 18 Automatic Data Processing Inc. Long Term 19 Disability Plan, et al., 20 21 Defendants‐Appellees, 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PLAINTIFF ‐APPELLANT: DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Summit, NJ 25 (Daniel Benjamin, Benjamin & Gold PC, 26 Stamford, CT on the brief). 1 2 FOR DEFENDANTS ‐APPELLEES MICHAEL T. GRAHAM, McDermott 3 Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, IL. 4 5

6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of

7 Connecticut (Chatigny, J.).

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

10 Plaintiff‐appellant Suellen Tritt, appeals the district court’s grant of judgment on

11 the administrative record for Defendants‐Appellees. Plaintiff filed this action to recover

12 disability benefits allegedly owed her under her former employer’s ERISA‐covered

13 long‐term disability insurance plan. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

14 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. The only argument Tritt makes on

15 appeal is that the district court improperly interpreted a clause in her insurance policy

16 limiting benefits for psychiatric disabilities. Since this issue was not presented to the

17 district court, we need not entertain it here. Greene v. United States,

, 585‐86

18 (2d Cir. 1994). In any event, the clause is unambiguous and was properly interpreted by

19 the district court.

20

2 1 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.1

2 FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4 5

1 Prior to oral argument, Tritt’s counsel moved to adjourn. We denied the motion and took the case on submission.

3