From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 27, 1990
165 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

September 27, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Prior, Jr., J.).


It is a rule in this State that damages cannot be recovered under a claim for loss of consortium unless the party asserting said claim was lawfully married to the injured person at the time of the actionable conduct (Briggs v. Butterfield Mem. Hosp., 104 A.D.2d 626; see, Du Bois v. Community Hosp., 150 A.D.2d 893, 894). Here it is uncontroverted that plaintiffs were living together but not married at the time the cause of action accrued. Consequently, the claim for loss of consortium was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 27, 1990
165 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Avenue Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL W. LESOCOVICH et al., Appellants, v. 180 MADISON AVENUE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 27, 1990

Citations

165 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 851

Citing Cases

Smith v. Bell Sports, Inc.

As more fully discussed infra, Marsh's loss of consortium claim is barred under both New York and New Jersey…

Nicholson v. South Oaks Hospital

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of…