You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE...
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO LOCATE THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT IN THIS RIGHT-OF-SEPULCHER CASE; THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, HOWEVER, ENJOYED GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact whether the hospital defendants made reasonable and sufficient efforts to locate the decedent’s next of kin in this right-of-sepulcher case alleging defendants interfered with plaintiffs right to immediate possession of decedent’s body. After the hospital defendants failed to locate the next of kin, the investigation was turned over to the County Public Administrator (PA). After the PA failed to locate the next of kin the decedent was buried. After plaintiffs learned of decedent’s death, the body was exhumed and a memorial service was held at the PA’s expense. The suit against the County PA was properly dismissed because the PA enjoyed governmental function immunity and no special duty was owed plaintiffs:

The common-law right of sepulcher “affords the decedent’s next of kin an absolute right to immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial . . . , and damages may be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” … . “To establish a cause of action for interference with the right of sepulcher, [a] plaintiff must establish that: (1) plaintiff is the decedent’s next of kin; (2) plaintiff had a right to possession of the remains; (3) defendant interfered with plaintiff’s right to immediate possession of the decedent’s body; (4) the interference was unauthorized; (5) plaintiff was aware of the interference; and (6) the interference caused plaintiff mental anguish” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs identified certain records of the hospital defendants, which indicated that decedent had resided, on some occasions, at a local homeless shelter. Those documents were available to the hospital defendants at the time they conducted their search for decedent’s next of kin, and there is no dispute that the hospital defendants did not attempt to contact that homeless shelter during their search.

Plaintiffs also submitted deposition testimony from a person employed by the homeless shelter, who testified that decedent was a frequent resident there and that she knew members of decedent’s family and could have contacted them if she had been notified of decedent’s death. Green v Iacovangelo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03363, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

You might also like
THE POND INTO WHICH THE 96-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT APPARENTLY SLID WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THE FACT THAT THE BANK OF THE POND IS SLIPPERY IS INCIDENTAL TO ITS NATURE AND LOCATION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSERTION THAT THE POND WAS DEFECTIVE AND UNSAFE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Attorney Not Ineffective for Failing to Make a Motion to Suppress—Nature of a Motion Which, If Not Made, Would Constitute Ineffective Assistance Addressed by the Majority and the Dissent
Person Injured After Being Thrown from a Motorcycle Is an “Occupant” of the Motorcycle Within the Meaning of the Insurance Law and Is Therefore Not Eligible for First-Party No-Fault Benefits
Punishment Was “Shocking to One’s Sense of Fairness”
THE PLEA-BARGAINED SENTENCE WAS BELOW THE STATUTORY MINIMUM, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
BOTH THE GRAND JURY AND THE TRIAL JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
The Striking Down (by the Court of Appeals) of a Retroactive Zoning Ordinance Which Prohibited the Operation of a Landfill Did Not Require the Striking Down of a Subsequent Health and Safety Regulation Which Had the Same Effect

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED;... DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW HIS...