Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital

Last updated

In 2000, New York residents John Langan and Neil Conrad Spicehandler traveled to Vermont, where they affirmed their commitment under Vermont's Civil Union laws. They were planning to adopt a child, and had purchased a house in Massapequa. Just hours after the closing of their house, Spicehandler was struck by an automobile in Manhattan. Spicehandler subsequently died following treatment at Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Center. Survivor Langan brought a malpractice suit against the Hospital, arguing standing as a "spouse" for purposes of New York's wrongful death statute.

Contents

Lower court ruling

In 2003, the New York Supreme Court (the state's trial court) held that Langan had standing as a "spouse" for the purposes of New York's wrongful death statute. New York courts, under principles of full faith and credit and comity recognize valid contracts established under the laws of her sister states so long as they do not offend a New York state policy. This policy is especially true of marriages celebrated in other states. Spouses in out-of-state marriages would thus be extended the privileges and immunities the marriage laws of New York extend to marriages officiated in-state. Even common law marriages, which are not recognized for in-state New York cohabiting partners, are recognized for purposes of New York spousal benefits so long as the common law marriage was validly entered into in another state.

The court ruled that partners in a civil union, a relationship status wholly legal in Vermont, are therefore indistinguishable from spouses in marriage to the extent of the rights conferred to a "spouse" under New York's wrongful death statute.

Intermediate court ruling

On October 11, 2005, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (intermediate appellate level court) overturned the lower court ruling. The appellate court concluded that the state legislature did not contemplate protecting same-sex couples when it enacted the wrongful death statute and that Langan had failed to demonstrate that there was no legitimate purpose for the statute's exclusion of same-sex couples. Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005).

Highest court ruling

The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed in 2006 the intermediate court's decision to deny Langan standing as surviving "spouse", thus blocking Langan from bringing suit against St. Vincent's Hospital. Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 25 A.D.3d 90, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005), review denied, 850 N.E.2d 672 (N.Y. 2006).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division</span> Courts in the US state of New York

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York is the intermediate appellate court in New York State. The state is geographically divided into four judicial departments of the Appellate Division. The full title of each is, using the "Fourth Department" as an example, the "Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span>

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in the judiciary of New York. It is vested with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction, although in many counties outside New York City it acts primarily as a court of civil jurisdiction, with most criminal matters handled in County Court.

In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason, and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave their job without reason or warning. The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 22</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman.

The Rothko case was the protracted legal dispute between Kate Rothko, the daughter of the painter Mark Rothko; the painter's estate executors; and the directors of his gallery, Marlborough Fine Art. The revelations in the case of greed, abuses of power and conspiracy by financial interests in the art world were described by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York state, as "manifestly wrongful and indeed shocking", serving as a cautionary tale for both artists and their gallerists.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in New York since July 24, 2011, under the Marriage Equality Act. The Act does not have a residency restriction, as some similar laws in other U.S. states do. It also allows religious organizations to decline to officiate at same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Bifurcation is a judge's ability in law to divide a trial into two parts so as to render a judgment on a set of legal issues without looking at all aspects. Frequently, civil cases are bifurcated into separate liability and damages proceedings. Criminal trials are also often bifurcated into guilt and sentencing phases, especially in capital cases.

Martin H. Tankleff is an American man who was wrongly convicted of murdering his parents, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff, on September 7, 1988, when he was 17 years old. After serving almost 18 years of imprisonment, his conviction was vacated and he was released from prison in 2007. He is now an attorney.

In United States law, the Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip. The Supreme Court abandoned the AguilarSpinelli test in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), in favor of a rule that evaluates the reliability of the information under the "totality of the circumstances." However, Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Oregon, and Washington have retained the Aguilar–Spinelli test, based on their own state constitutions.

Premises liability is the liability that a landowner or occupier has for certain torts that occur on their land.

Common-law marriage, also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact is a form of irregular marriage that survives only in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia along with some provisions of military law; plus two other states that recognize domestic common law marriage after the fact for limited purposes.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It was the first case to articulate the "excessive entanglement doctrine" that one year later became the third prong of the Lemon test.

People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 was a case before the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. It determined that a trial court, when considering a "motion to dismiss in the interest of justice", must convene an evidentiary hearing to consider whether the dismissal would in fact be in the "interest of justice".

The Jiggetts case established New York City's Jiggetts housing assistance program, which was ultimately replaced by the Family Eviction Prevention Supplement in 2005.

<i>Cunningham v. Cunningham</i>

Cunningham v. Cunningham, 99 N.E. 845, was a case heard by the New York Court of Appeals which allowed the annulment of a marriage that took place in New Jersey, where the bride had been below the age of consent in both states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of New York (state)</span>

The law of New York consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, regulatory and case law, and also includes local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The Consolidated Laws form the general statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act</span>

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act is a U.S. federal law enacted on September 8, 1982 to address issues that arise when a member of the military divorces, and primarily concerns jointly-earned marital property consisting of benefits earned during marriage and while one of the spouses is a military service member. The divisibility of U.S. military retirement payments in divorce proceedings has had a turbulent legislative and legal history, and the USFSPA has not closely tracked its civilian cousin enacted in 1975, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), although they are similar in some respects with regard to public policy aims.

People v. Golb is a New York case in which Raphael Golb, a lawyer with a Ph.D. in comparative literature, was convicted for a variety of alleged criminal offenses relating to his use of pseudonymous blogs and emails to criticize and ridicule several Dead Sea Scrolls scholars. His conviction was largely reversed on constitutional grounds, but was partially affirmed. Golb later wrote a book about the case in which he reiterated his criticism of the scholars involved and maintained that the case amounted to a criminalization of satire, parody, and academic criticism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal status of the Universal Life Church</span>

The legal status of the Universal Life Church encompasses a collection of court decisions and state executive branch pronouncements determining what rights the Universal Life Church (ULC) and comparable organizations have as religious organizations.