Seitzman v. Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seitzman v. Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine

167 A.D.2d 177, 561 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13495

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 177 (Seitzman v. Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine) 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

Seitzman v. Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 167 A.D.2d 177, 561 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered on June 26, 1989, which granted defendants’ motion to strike the word "death” from plaintiff’s bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with costs.

Plaintiff’s decedent’s estate brought this action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering. There is no cause of [178]*178action for wrongful death inasmuch as there are no eligible distributees.

The motion court reasoned that inclusion of the word "death” was an attempt to add a cause of action for wrongful death, rather than to amplify the pleadings. We disagree.

Because the estate would be entitled to recover funeral expenses pursuant to EPTL 11-3.3, the inclusion of the word "death” in the bill of particulars is proper, and not an attempt to add a nonviable wrongful death cause of action. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered on June 26, 1989, which granted defendants’ motion to strike the word "death” from plaintiff’s bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, with costs.

Plaintiff’s decedent’s estate brought this action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering. There is no cause of [178]*178action for wrongful death inasmuch as there are no eligible distributees.

The motion court reasoned that inclusion of the word "death” was an attempt to add a cause of action for wrongful death, rather than to amplify the pleadings. We disagree.

Because the estate would be entitled to recover funeral expenses pursuant to EPTL 11-3.3, the inclusion of the word "death” in the bill of particulars is proper, and not an attempt to add a nonviable wrongful death cause of action. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 177, 561 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seitzman-v-hospital-of-albert-einstein-college-of-medicine-nyappdiv-1990.