Estate of Loughlin v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Loughlin v. State of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 290, 146 A.D.3d 863, 45 N.Y.S.3d 521

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2017

Docket2015-02907

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 290 (Estate of Loughlin v. State of New York) 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

Estate of Loughlin v. State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 290, 146 A.D.3d 863, 45 N.Y.S.3d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for violation of the right of sepulcher, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated January 16, 2015, which, upon a decision of the same court dated December 11, 2014, made after a trial, is in favor of the claimants Laurie Keane and Patrick Loughlin and against the defendant in the principal sum of only $75,000 each.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he common-law right of sepulcher gives the next of kin the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be *864 awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [2009]). The standard of review for a damages award is whether it “deviate [s] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (Vasquez v County of Nassau, 91 AD3d 855, 858 [2012]). In making such a determination, “[p]rior damages awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts but serve to ‘guide and enlighten’ them in determining whether a verdict constitutes reasonable compensation” (Kusulas v Saco, 134 AD3d 772, 774 [2015], quoting Taveras v Vega, 119 AD3d 853, 854 [2014]). Here, contrary to the claimants’ contention, the Court of Claims’ award of damages for the violation of the right to sepulcher did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb it.

Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for violation of the right of sepulcher, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated January 16, 2015, which, upon a decision of the same court dated December 11, 2014, made after a trial, is in favor of the claimants Laurie Keane and Patrick Loughlin and against the defendant in the principal sum of only $75,000 each.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he common-law right of sepulcher gives the next of kin the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial, and . . . damages will be *864 awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” (Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 AD3d 26, 31 [2009]). The standard of review for a damages award is whether it “deviate [s] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (Vasquez v County of Nassau, 91 AD3d 855, 858 [2012]). In making such a determination, “[p]rior damages awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts but serve to ‘guide and enlighten’ them in determining whether a verdict constitutes reasonable compensation” (Kusulas v Saco, 134 AD3d 772, 774 [2015], quoting Taveras v Vega, 119 AD3d 853, 854 [2014]). Here, contrary to the claimants’ contention, the Court of Claims’ award of damages for the violation of the right to sepulcher did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb it.

Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 290, 146 A.D.3d 863, 45 N.Y.S.3d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-loughlin-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack