Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corp.

165 A.D.2d 963, 561 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11450

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 165 A.D.2d 963 (Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corp.) 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

Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corp., 165 A.D.2d 963, 561 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Prior, Jr., J.), entered January 9, 1990 in Albany County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Nancy Brunina.

It is a rule in this State that damages cannot be recovered under a claim for loss of consortium unless the party asserting said claim was lawfully married to the injured person at the time of the actionable conduct (Briggs v Butterfield Mem. Hosp., 104 AD2d 626; see, Du Bois v Community Hosp., 150 AD2d 893, 894). Here it is uncontroverted that plaintiffs were [964]*964living together but not married at the time the cause of action accrued. Consequently, the claim for loss of consortium was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Prior, Jr., J.), entered January 9, 1990 in Albany County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Nancy Brunina.

It is a rule in this State that damages cannot be recovered under a claim for loss of consortium unless the party asserting said claim was lawfully married to the injured person at the time of the actionable conduct (Briggs v Butterfield Mem. Hosp., 104 AD2d 626; see, Du Bois v Community Hosp., 150 AD2d 893, 894). Here it is uncontroverted that plaintiffs were [964]*964living together but not married at the time the cause of action accrued. Consequently, the claim for loss of consortium was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 963, 561 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesocovich-v-180-madison-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack