Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Saperstein v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 15, 1973Published

1ConcurrenceCooke, J.

There is no issue here as to whether the autopsy, under the terms of the policy, was 1 ‘ forbidden by law ”, .since decedent by expressly agreeing to be bound by said terms gave his consent to the autopsy (see Wehle v. United States Mut. Acc. Assn., 153 N. Y. 116, 122). Having given same, a postmortem examination as such was not forbidden by law in New York State (cf. Public Health Law, § 4210-a; see 14 N. Y. Jur., Dead Bodies, § 17).

*491The demand for the autopsy was timely made. The delay of approximately one month from the notice of death to the request for said procedure was immaterial (Gould…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wehle v. United States Mutual Accident Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. Gould v. Travelers InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  3. Gould v. Travelers Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  4. McCulloch v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  5. Dvorkin v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1940

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API