Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Holmes v. Maimonides Medical Center
Citations: 95 A.D.3d 831; 943 N.Y.S.2d 573
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 1, 2012; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of Kings County, in an order dated March 4, 2011, granted the defendants' cross motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for loss of consortium in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff, Jeanette M. Holmes, is the widow of William Cruz, who underwent surgery performed by defendant Joseph Cunningham at Maimonides Medical Center on June 7, 2006. Cruz and Holmes were married on December 9, 2006, shortly before initiating the lawsuit. After Cruz's death on September 26, 2009, Holmes became the administrator of his estate and sought to consolidate the malpractice case with a wrongful death action. The court granted the consolidation but dismissed the loss of consortium claim, which Holmes now appeals. The court affirmed the dismissal, stating that a loss of consortium claim is not valid if the alleged tortious conduct occurred before the marriage. Since the surgery took place prior to their marriage, Holmes is barred from recovering damages for loss of consortium related to that event. Additionally, the court noted that Holmes's argument that separate acts of malpractice occurred after the marriage was not properly before the court, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Holmes also contended that she and Cruz had a common-law marriage recognized in Pennsylvania; however, the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim. New York does not recognize common-law marriages unless validated in the state where they were contracted, and Holmes failed to demonstrate such validity. The order is affirmed, with costs awarded to the defendants, and the justices concurred in the decision.