Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2009–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Melfi v. Mount Sinai Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025In 2009, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that "for a right of sepulcher claim to accrue (1) there must be interference with the next of kin's immediate possession of decedent's body and (2) the interference has caused mental anguish, which is generally presumed" ( Melfi , 64 AD3d at 39 , supra ). 2025In 2009, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that "for a right of sepulcher claim to accrue (1) there must be interference with the next of kin's immediate possession of decedent's body and (2) the interference has caused mental anguish, which is generally presumed" ( Melfi , 64 AD3d at 39 , supra ). | 3 | 7 |
Andre Shipley v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2021As earlier noted, the right of sepulcher safeguards the surviving next of kin's right to find "solace and comfort in the ritual of burial" ( Shipley , 25 NY3d at 653 ; Melfi , 64 AD3d at 32 ). 2021The principle is well established that the common-law right of sepulcher gives the next of kin the absolute right to the immediate possession of a decedent's body for preservation and burial, and that damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent's body ( see Shipley v City of New York , 25 NY3d 645, 653 [2015]; Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp. , 64 AD3d 26, 31 [1st Dept 2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Hendriksen v. Roosevelt Hospitalgreen2 sentences2015In a case presenting facts and claims similar to those presented by this appeal, the Southern District of New York, in Hendriksen v Roosevelt Hosp., refused to dismiss a right of sepulcher claim based on the alleged lack of consent by plaintiff to the removal and retention of organs during a lawful autopsy ( 297 F Supp 1142, 1143-1144 [1969], citing Hassard v Lehane, 143 App Div 424, 427 [1st Dept 1911] [recognizing claim for retention of organs]). 2015In a case presenting facts and claims similar to those presented by this appeal, the Southern District of New York, in Hendriksen v Roosevelt Hospital, refused to dismiss a right of sepulcher claim based on the alleged lack of consent by plaintiff to the removal and retention of organs during a lawful autopsy ( 297 F Supp 1142, 1143-1144 [1969], citing Hassard v Lehane 143 AD 424, 425 [1st Dept 1911] [recognizing claim for retention of organs]). | 1 | 1 |
Hassard v. Lehanegreen2 sentences2015In a case presenting facts and claims similar to those presented by this appeal, the Southern District of New York, in Hendriksen v Roosevelt Hosp., refused to dismiss a right of sepulcher claim based on the alleged lack of consent by plaintiff to the removal and retention of organs during a lawful autopsy ( 297 F Supp 1142, 1143-1144 [1969], citing Hassard v Lehane, 143 App Div 424, 427 [1st Dept 1911] [recognizing claim for retention of organs]). 2015In a case presenting facts and claims similar to those presented by this appeal, the Southern District of New York, in Hendriksen v Roosevelt Hospital, refused to dismiss a right of sepulcher claim based on the alleged lack of consent by plaintiff to the removal and retention of organs during a lawful autopsy ( 297 F Supp 1142, 1143-1144 [1969], citing Hassard v Lehane 143 AD 424, 425 [1st Dept 1911] [recognizing claim for retention of organs]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shipley v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2015Shipley v City of New York ( 80 AD3d 171 [2d Dept 2010]), cited by both parties, deals with the Medical Examiner’s statutory and common-law obligation to turn over remains following the completion of an autopsy and only tangentially involves notification of the specific fact that “one or more organs have been removed for further examination” (id. at 178). 2015Shipley v City of New York ( 80 AD3d 171 [2d Dept 2010], revd __NY3d__ [2015], 2015 NY Slip Op 04791 [2015]), cited by both parties, deals with the Medical Examiner's statutory and common-law obligation to turn over remains following the completion of an autopsy and only tangentially involves notification of the specific fact that "one or more organs have been removed for further examination" ( id. at 178). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Darcy v. . Presbyterian Hospital
green
1 sentence2009Interference can arise either by unauthorized autopsy (Darcy, 202 NY at 262-263 ) or by disposing of the remains inadvertently (Finley, 220 NY at 257-258 ; Correa v Maimonides Med. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Finley v. . Atlantic Transport Co.
green
1 sentence2009Interference can arise either by unauthorized autopsy (Darcy, 202 NY at 262-263 ) or by disposing of the remains inadvertently (Finley, 220 NY at 257-258 ; Correa v Maimonides Med. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.