You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL, CREMATORY AND FUNERAL CHAPEL RELIED IN GOOD FAITH...
, ,

THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL, CREMATORY AND FUNERAL CHAPEL RELIED IN GOOD FAITH ON THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY DECEDENT’S DOMESTIC PARTNER; PLAINTIFFS, DECEDENT’S ADULT CHILDREN, RAISED NO OBJECTION TO THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE DOMESTIC PARTNER UNTIL A MONTH AFTER DEATH; THE “INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS OF SEPULCHER” ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this “infringement of rights of sepulcher” proceeding should have been granted. The defendant hospital, crematory (Greenwood) and funeral chapel (Ackerman) relied in good faith on information provided by the decedent’s “alleged domestic partner,” Ms. Taddeo. Plaintiffs, the adult children of the decedent, had been informed of decedent’s death but did not communicate with defendants until a month later, after the cremation:

“No cemetery organization, business operating a crematory, natural organic reduction facility, or columbarium, funeral director, undertaker, embalmer or funeral firm shall be held liable for actions taken reasonably and in good faith to carry out the directions of a person who represents that he or she is entitled to control of the disposition of remains, provided that such action is taken only after requesting and receiving written statement that such person . . . is the designated agent of the decedent designated in a will or written instrument executed pursuant to this section (Public Health Law § 4201[7], [a]).”

Furthermore, Ackerman and Greenwood were entitled to rely on cremation authorizations complying with section 4201(7) … . Ms. Taddeo, identifying herself as the decedent’s next of kin, provided a valid cremation authorization to both Ackerman and Greenwood instructing that his remains be cremated.

Neither Ackerman nor Greenwood had reason to question Ms. Taddeo’s status as the decedent’s domestic partner. Under Public Health Law § 4201(7), there is no affirmative duty to investigate absent “incomplete or suspicious documents or other information that would cast doubt upon an individual’s authority to control a decedent’s remains” … . There were no such red flags here. Ms. Taddeo represented herself to defendants as the decedent’s domestic partner, readily provided the decedent’s personal information, including his social security number, his date of birth, and his parents’ names, and there were no objections made by plaintiffs to Ms. Taddeo’s authority at the time of the decedent’s death. Felton v St. Joseph Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05014, First Dept 9-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a rare discussion of the “rights of sepulcher.”​

 

You might also like
Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others (Caulking) Entitles Scaffold Operator to Coverage Under Labor Law 240 (1)
Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.
Permission to Re-Submit Charges to a Second Grand Jury Was Required.
Judicial Estoppel Applies Only to Party Who Prevailed in Prior Proceeding
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT ALLEGED INJURY IN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RUN BY TWO TEACHERS; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THE PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL OF THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
SORA Amendments Did Not Render Statute Punitive—Ex Post Facto Clause Not Applicable​
DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1); THE ARTICULATING LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WHICH FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT AGAINST AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST 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

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RENEW THE MOTION TO DISMISS... THE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY RETAINING...