You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DECEDENT’S BODY WAS DELIVERED TO THE WRONG FUNERAL HOME,...

ALTHOUGH DECEDENT’S BODY WAS DELIVERED TO THE WRONG FUNERAL HOME, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT OF SEPULCHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not demonstrate defendant interfered with plaintiffs’ right of sepulcher by releasing the decedent’s body to the wrong funeral home:

“The common-law right of sepulcher affords the deceased’s next of kin an absolute right to the 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” … . …

…[T]the evidence establishes that Cleckley, who was then satisfying a residency to become a licensed funeral director, was directed by his superior to collect and transport the decedent’s body to the funeral home. The plaintiffs presented no evidence either that Cleckley was aware that the funeral home was not authorized to take possession of the decedent’s body or that he was negligent in failing to verify that his superior was authorized to direct him to collect and transport the decedent’s body. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden to show that he wrongfully interfered with the plaintiffs’ right to immediate possession of the decedent’s body … . The plaintiffs likewise failed to demonstrate that Cleckley acted wrongfully or negligently such that he may be held liable for their emotional injuries … . Turner v Owens Funeral Home, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07237, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

You might also like
Hearing Required to Determine If Complaint Properly Served
PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS, UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE; THE SCI WAS THEREFORE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Liability for Condition of Sidewalk Raised
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW A CONTRACT WITH MUTUAL CANCELLATION CLAUSES IS VALID; THEREFORE THE CANCELLATION BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OR THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH (SECOND 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

THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL... IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR,...