loss of consortium claim in New York

2024Co. , 22 NY2d 498, 502 [1968]).

1989In Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co. ( 22 NY2d 498, 502, 504 [1968]) Judge Keating, in an opinion overturning prior decisional law that had disallowed a loss of consortium claim to a wife, wrote: "The concept of consortium includes not only loss of support or services, it also embraces such elements as love, companionship, affection, society, sexual relations, solace and more. * * * "Thus the 'consortium’ interest to be protected here does not rest on any medieval theory but on the real injury done to the marital relationship.” In Groat v Town Bd. ( 100 Misc 2d 326, 330 [Sup Ct, Schenecta

2024I I Loss of Consortium The loss of consortium claim must also be dismissed, since it is derivative of the other claims (Kim v New York Presbyt., I 70 AD3D 624, 625 [1st Dept 2018]; Hazel v Montefiore Med Ctr., 243 AD2d 344,345 [1st Dept 1997]). 159201/2012 ZIC, VELIMIR vs.

2019Ctr. , 243 AD2d 344, 345 [1st Dept 1997]; Kaisman v Hernandez , 61 AD3d 565, 566 [1st Dept 2009]).

2020In considering the loss of consortium claim, "the jury was free to conclude that [plaintiffs] failed to prove any economically measurable loss of services" to plaintiff Donovan Samlal ( Silverstein v Harmonie Club of City of N.Y. , 173 AD2d 378, 379 [1st Dept 1991] [emphasis added]; see Rivera v City of New York , 40 AD3d 334, 344 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 782 [2011]; Gutierrez v City of New York , 288 AD2d 86 [1st Dept 2001]).

2007Moreover, even were we to assume a viable derivative claim, Mrs. Rivera’s vague and conclusory testimony, simply that her husband would not touch her for “some months” after the incident and that she had to stop working for “a while,” failed to establish even minimal damages for a loss of consortium claim (see Gutierrez, 288 AD2d 86 [2001]; Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 210 AD2d 703 , 706 [1994], revd on other grounds 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Silverstein v Harmonie Club of City of N.Y., 173 AD2d 378, 379 [1991]).

1997Other State courts that have required joinder have nevertheless allowed a plaintiff to assert a loss of consortium claim even after the plaintiff’s spouse has settled his or her main claim, on the theory that joinder of the two actions is no longer possible (see, Jones v Elliott, supra, 551 A2d, at 65); that claimants and defendants in settlement negotiations should be left to protect themselves from duplication of damages (see, Huffer v Kozitza, 375 NW2d 480, 482 [Minn]; see also, Neely v Kossove, 198 NJ Super 503, 505, 487 A2d 788, 789 ); or that the loss of consortium claim can be limited t

1989(See, e.g., Barni v Kutner, 45 Del 550, 76 A2d 801 ; Huffer v Kozitza, 361 NW2d 451, 454 [Minn], affd 375 NW2d 480 ; Ryter v Brennan, 291 So 2d 55 [Fla], cert denied 297 So 2d 836; Stapleton u Palmore, 250 Ga 259, 297 SE2d 270 ; Kotsiris v Ling, 451 SW2d 411 [Ky]; Whittlesey v Miller, 572 SW2d 665 , supra; Layne v Huffman, 42 Ohio St 2d 287, 327 NE2d 767 .) Courts in other jurisdictions, however, hold that the loss of consortium claim of one spouse must be joined with the personal injury claim of the other spouse.

1997See, e.g., Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462, 466 (Alaska); Hopson v St.

1989(See, e.g., Schreiner v Fruit, 519 P2d 462 , supra; Hopson v St.

2024The fact that plaintiffs had not lived together since 1991 did not entitle [*2]defendants to judgment as a matter of law ( see Rakich v Lawes , 186 AD2d 932, 934-935 [3d Dept 1992]).

2020In considering the loss of consortium claim, "the jury was free to conclude that [plaintiffs] failed to prove any economically measurable loss of services" to plaintiff Donovan Samlal ( Silverstein v Harmonie Club of City of N.Y. , 173 AD2d 378, 379 [1st Dept 1991] [emphasis added]; see Rivera v City of New York , 40 AD3d 334, 344 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 782 [2011]; Gutierrez v City of New York , 288 AD2d 86 [1st Dept 2001]).

2020In considering the loss of consortium claim, "the jury was free to conclude that [plaintiffs] failed to prove any economically measurable loss of services" to plaintiff Donovan Samlal ( Silverstein v Harmonie Club of City of N.Y. , 173 AD2d 378, 379 [1st Dept 1991] [emphasis added]; see Rivera v City of New York , 40 AD3d 334, 344 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 782 [2011]; Gutierrez v City of New York , 288 AD2d 86 [1st Dept 2001]).

2019Ctr. , 243 AD2d 344, 345 [1st Dept 1997]; Kaisman v Hernandez , 61 AD3d 565, 566 [1st Dept 2009]).

2014Auth. ( 139 AD2d 438, 439 [1st Dept 1988]), which held nonpecuniary “loss of companionship, comfort and assistance . . . typical of a loss of consortium claim . . . are not recoverable in a wrongful death action” and that the type of pecuniary loss “awarded to minor children for the economically recognized and calculable losses of the household management services of a mother” are not incurred by adult children.

2009A loss of consortium claim represents the marital partner’s interest in the continuance of the marital relationship as it existed at its inception (Buckley v National Frgt., 90 NY2d 210, 213-214 [1997]; Anderson v Eli Lilly & Co., 79 NY2d 797, 798 [1991]).

2009A loss of consortium claim represents the marital partner’s interest in the continuance of the marital relationship as it existed at its inception (Buckley v National Frgt., 90 NY2d 210, 213-214 [1997]; Anderson v Eli Lilly & Co., 79 NY2d 797, 798 [1991]).

2009The husband’s claim, however, is governed by the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214; Schrank v Lederman, 52 AD3d at 497 ).

2009Finally, the continuous treatment toll is personal to the patient and not available to extend the husband’s loss of consortium claim (see Schrank v Lederman, 52 AD3d 494, 496-497 [2008]).

1997Other State courts that have required joinder have nevertheless allowed a plaintiff to assert a loss of consortium claim even after the plaintiff’s spouse has settled his or her main claim, on the theory that joinder of the two actions is no longer possible (see, Jones v Elliott, supra, 551 A2d, at 65); that claimants and defendants in settlement negotiations should be left to protect themselves from duplication of damages (see, Huffer v Kozitza, 375 NW2d 480, 482 [Minn]; see also, Neely v Kossove, 198 NJ Super 503, 505, 487 A2d 788, 789 ); or that the loss of consortium claim can be limited t

1997Other State courts that have required joinder have nevertheless allowed a plaintiff to assert a loss of consortium claim even after the plaintiff’s spouse has settled his or her main claim, on the theory that joinder of the two actions is no longer possible (see, Jones v Elliott, supra, 551 A2d, at 65); that claimants and defendants in settlement negotiations should be left to protect themselves from duplication of damages (see, Huffer v Kozitza, 375 NW2d 480, 482 [Minn]; see also, Neely v Kossove, 198 NJ Super 503, 505, 487 A2d 788, 789 ); or that the loss of consortium claim can be limited t

1991Cf., Walsh v Armstrong World Indus., 700 F Supp 783, 785 (SD NY 1988) (noting that where the injured spouse is in the relatively early stages of a progressive disease at the time of the marriage, a loss of consortium claim may lie in favor of the other spouse, since under such circumstance "both the quality and quantity of consortium [will] decrease with time”).