Brijlall v. R.G. Ortiz Funeral Home, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brijlall v. R.G. Ortiz Funeral Home, Inc.

13 A.D.3d 322, 786 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15639

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 322 (Brijlall v. R.G. Ortiz Funeral Home, 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

Brijlall v. R.G. Ortiz Funeral Home, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 322, 786 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered November 20, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the first, second and fourth causes of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Giving plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we conclude that the complaint stated causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress in interfering with the burial of plaintiffs’ decedent’s body (see Massaro v O’Shea Funeral Home, 292 AD2d 349 [2002]; Augeri v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 225 AD2d 1105 [1996]). Even if applicable to this contract, which did not mention the provision of perpetual care, the claim for breach of contract was based on documentary evidence that sufficiently satisfied the statute of frauds. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered November 20, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the first, second and fourth causes of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Giving plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we conclude that the complaint stated causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress in interfering with the burial of plaintiffs’ decedent’s body (see Massaro v O’Shea Funeral Home, 292 AD2d 349 [2002]; Augeri v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 225 AD2d 1105 [1996]). Even if applicable to this contract, which did not mention the provision of perpetual care, the claim for breach of contract was based on documentary evidence that sufficiently satisfied the statute of frauds. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 322, 786 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brijlall-v-rg-ortiz-funeral-home-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack