As we have stated:"In construing statutes, it is a well-established rule that resort must be had to the natural signification of the words employed, and if they have a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity or contradiction, there is no room for construction and courts have no right to add to or take away from that meaning" (Tompkins v. As the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof. "It is fundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature" (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. No funeral director, undertaker, embalmer or funeral firm shall be held liable for actions taken reasonably and in good faith to carry out the directions of a person who represents that he or she is entitled to control of the disposition of remains, provided that such action is taken only after requesting and receiving written statement that such person:(a) is the designated agent of the decedent designated in a will or written instrument executed pursuant to this section or(b) that he or she has no knowledge that the decedent executed a written instrument pursuant to this section or a will containing directions for the disposition of his or her remains and that such person is the person having priority under subdivision two of this section. The pertinent part of PHL 4201(7) states as follows: Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment should be granted to them pursuant to Public Health Law 4201 (7), arguing that defendant was required to have a written contract before taking control of the body. Reese viewed the remains of the decedent after we had retrieved the body, and he did not have any complaints at the time." Reese requested embalming and funeral arrangements and burial-services for the decedent." Reese verbally authorized the retrieval of Ms. After decedent was embalmed by defendant, another undertaker, Unity Funeral Chapel, retrieved decedent's body from defendant. Porter aver that they did not authorize defendant to take possession of the body of decedent, nor did they authorize defendant to embalm her. Porter), aver that they spoke to nonparty, Isiah Owens, (Owens), the president and owner of defendant, Owens Funeral Home, Inc., about decedent, Both Reese and D. Plaintiffs, Tracy Reese, (Reese), and Daran Porter, (D. Tracy Reese is a registered domestic partner of decedent, Charlene Wimbush, and the remaining plaintiffs, Daran Porter, Cherry Porter, Stevie Porter and Lisa Porter are siblings. Plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their first cause of action for loss of sepulcher, and the second cause of action for violation of Public Health Law 4201 and for dismissal of defendants second, fourth, sixth and seventh affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) and 3212. Upon the foregoing papers and due deliberation thereof, the Decision/Order on this motion is as follows: Replying Affidavit and Exhibits-motion sequence #1 NYSCEF Notice of Motion-Order to Show Cause - Exhibits and Affidavits Annexed-motion sequence No.1 NYSCEFĪnswering Affidavit and Exhibits-motion sequence #1 NYSCEF The following papers numbered 1 to read on this motion for summary judgment Owens Funeral Home, Incorporated, Defendant. Tracy Reese, DARAN PORTER, CHERRY PORTER, STEVIE PORTER, and LISA PORTER, Plaintiffs This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |