Nichols v. Lawrence H. Woodward Funeral Home
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-06264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Nichols v. Lawrence H. Woodward Funeral Home, Judge Carter granted dismissal of five claims, denied dismissal of negligence claims, and allowed amendment.
Xiomora Nichols may continue pursuing negligence and gross-negligence claims against Lawrence H. Woodward Funeral Home and may amend her complaint. Her other claims against Woodward were subject to the granted motion to dismiss. The opinion does not decide the Upper East Side Rehabilitation Center’s liability.
What happened
In Nichols v. Lawrence H. Woodward Funeral Home, Xiomora Nichols alleged that the funeral home mishandled her aunt Jean Bryan’s remains after Bryan died at the Upper East Side Rehabilitation Center. Nichols asserted contract, New York Public Health Law, burial-right, negligence, gross-negligence, and emotional-distress claims.
Nichols alleged that the Center kept Bryan’s body unrefrigerated for two to three days and that Woodward did not properly arrange its transfer. Woodward argued that it had no preplanned contract, was closed during the holiday weekend, and did not learn of Bryan’s death until September 8, 2021. The Center opposed dismissal, arguing that factual questions remained about Woodward’s potential responsibility.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Woodward’s motion to dismiss the written-contract, oral-contract, Public Health Law § 4201, right-of-sepulcher, and intentional-emotional-distress claims. He denied the motion as to negligence and gross negligence and granted Nichols permission to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Nichols v. Lawrence H. Woodward Funeral Home · No. 1:22-cv-06264
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
Xiomora Nichols is the niece of Jean Bryan, who died at the Upper East Side Rehabilitation Center on September 4, 2021. Nichols alleged that the Center kept Bryan’s remains in an unrefrigerated storage closet for two to three days and that Woodward failed to arrange their timely transfer to the City Morgue. Bryan’s body decomposed to the point that it could not be viewed at an open-casket funeral, and she was cremated.
Nichols alleged several claims against Woodward, including breach of written and oral contracts, violation of New York Public Health Law § 4201, violation of her common-law right of sepulcher—the next of kin’s right to immediate possession of a deceased person’s body for burial or other disposition—negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Woodward moved to dismiss. The Center opposed the motion and asserted a cross-claim seeking contribution or indemnification if Nichols recovered against it.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At that stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but did not accept unsupported conclusions.
Contract claims. The court dismissed the written-contract claim because Nichols no longer maintained that a written preplanned contract existed, and Woodward could not locate one. The court also dismissed Nichols’s theory that providing Bryan’s insurance-policy information created an implied contract because Nichols provided no supporting facts and did not attach the policy.
The court dismissed the alleged oral-contract claim. Although Nichols described prior oral arrangements with Woodward involving other family members, she did not provide enough details about the alleged agreement concerning Bryan’s remains. The court also found that the claim did not adequately allege a price term, which the court treated as an essential term of a contract under New York law.
New York Public Health Law § 4201. The court dismissed this claim because Nichols had not provided evidence that Bryan designated Woodward as the person in control of Bryan’s remains’ disposition. The court specifically noted the absence of a written preplanned agreement establishing that designation.
Right of sepulcher. The court dismissed Nichols’s claim that Woodward violated her right to possess Bryan’s remains. The court found that Nichols had not clearly established that Woodward possessed the remains, interfered with her right of possession, or improperly handled the remains after obtaining possession. The court also concluded that Woodward’s alleged failure to arrange transportation, without possession of the remains, was insufficient for this claim.
Negligence and gross negligence. The court denied dismissal of these claims. It found that the September 11, 2021 email from Woodward indicated that Woodward knew of Bryan’s death on September 4 and instructed the Center to send the remains to the City Morgue. Based on that alleged undertaking, the court concluded that Nichols plausibly alleged Woodward assumed a duty to act as a reasonably careful funeral home.
The court also found that Nichols plausibly alleged gross negligence because Woodward’s alleged failure to transport the remains, or to ensure that transportation occurred, could show reckless disregard for Nichols’s rights.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed this claim because it was based on the same facts as the negligence claim and sought recovery for the same alleged harm. The court treated it as duplicative of the negligence claim.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court granted Nichols leave to file a first amended complaint to try to correct the deficiencies in the dismissed claims. It ordered her to file that amended complaint by October 13, 2023.
The court granted Woodward’s motion to dismiss as to the claims for breach of written contract, breach of oral contract, violation of New York Public Health Law § 4201, loss of sepulcher, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It denied the motion as to negligence and gross negligence. It also granted Nichols’s request for leave to amend.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.