Alvez v. American Export Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvez v. American Export Lines, Inc.

59 A.D.2d 883, 399 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14065

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 883 (Alvez v. American Export Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvez v. American Export Lines, Inc., 59 A.D.2d 883, 399 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 17, 1976, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion to amend the complaint granted, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant in this maritime personal injury action has sought to add his wife’s cause for loss of consortium. Defendant-respondent relied on Igneri v Cié de Transp. Oceaniques (323 F2d 257) to the effect that such causes are not available under maritime law, and Special Term agreed. We do not consider that the applicable law in its present state is so clearly against such a cause being advanced at the pleading stage of the case. Such causes are currently held acceptable, one such case being Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (414 US 573), a wrongful death case. We know of no reason why this should not be acceptable in a personal injury case. (See, also, Pesce v Summa Corp., 54 Cal App 3d 86.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 17, 1976, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion to amend the complaint granted, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant in this maritime personal injury action has sought to add his wife’s cause for loss of consortium. Defendant-respondent relied on Igneri v Cié de Transp. Oceaniques (323 F2d 257) to the effect that such causes are not available under maritime law, and Special Term agreed. We do not consider that the applicable law in its present state is so clearly against such a cause being advanced at the pleading stage of the case. Such causes are currently held acceptable, one such case being Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (414 US 573), a wrongful death case. We know of no reason why this should not be acceptable in a personal injury case. (See, also, Pesce v Summa Corp., 54 Cal App 3d 86.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 883, 399 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvez-v-american-export-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack