Lockhart v. Hempstead General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lockhart v. Hempstead General Hospital

274 A.D.2d 378, 711 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 378 (Lockhart v. Hempstead General Hospital) 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

Lockhart v. Hempstead General Hospital, 274 A.D.2d 378, 711 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for the mishandling of a corpse, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Win-slow, J.), entered June 11, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 5, 1999, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5512 [a]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order is vacated, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to offer “strong and satisfactory” proof that the deceased’s first wife was still alive at the time of his marriage to the plaintiff (Matter of Brown, 40 NY2d 938, 939; see, Matter of Seidel v Crown Indus., 132 AD2d 729; see, Matter of Meltzer v McAnns Bar & Grill, 85 AD2d 826). Thus, questions of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff was the deceased’s next of kin.

The defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for the mishandling of a corpse, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Win-slow, J.), entered June 11, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 5, 1999, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5512 [a]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order is vacated, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to offer “strong and satisfactory” proof that the deceased’s first wife was still alive at the time of his marriage to the plaintiff (Matter of Brown, 40 NY2d 938, 939; see, Matter of Seidel v Crown Indus., 132 AD2d 729; see, Matter of Meltzer v McAnns Bar & Grill, 85 AD2d 826). Thus, questions of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff was the deceased’s next of kin.

The defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 378, 711 N.Y.S.2d 759, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-hempstead-general-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack