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.
Close v. Nathan Littauer Hospital
Citations: 90 A.D.2d 580; 456 N.Y.S.2d 134; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18644
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 7, 1982; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed against an order from the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cerrito, J.) dated March 1, 1982, in Fulton County, which denied the defendant's motion to strike part of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars in a medical malpractice case involving the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of Ethel C. Close. The plaintiff, who is the sole distributee and administrator of the deceased's estate, included in paragraph 14 of the complaint a claim for the loss of love, society, companionship, and other forms of emotional support from the deceased. The plaintiff identified himself, his wife, and his child as the "family" referenced in this claim. The defendant responded by moving to strike paragraph 8 of the bill of particulars, arguing that recovery for loss of consortium is not permitted for individuals who are not distributees of the estate, citing relevant statutes (EPTL 5-4.1, 5-4.4) and case law (Liff v Schildkrout, 49 NY2d 622). The court noted the necessity for the defendant to know, prior to trial, who is entitled to claim damages. The ruling found that no legal basis exists for recovery for loss of consortium by the non-distributees mentioned, leading to the conclusion that the Special Term erred in its decision. The order was reversed, with costs awarded to the defendant, and the motion to strike paragraph 8 of the bill of particulars was granted. Judges Sweeney, Kane, Casey, Weiss, and Levine concurred in this decision.