TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lauterbach v. Fleischer

Barbara Lauterbach v. David Fleischer

Lauterbach v. Fleischer, 16 A.D.2d 701 (1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 30, 1962
Citations
16 A.D.2d 701227 N.Y.S.2d 7261962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10087

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, a passenger in defendant’s automobile, as the result of an accident in the State of Pennsylvania, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 23, 1961, which denied her motion, made pursuant to rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out as insufficient *702 the affirmative defense in defendant’s answer that the action is barred under the law of Pennsylvania, since after the accident the plaintiff and defendant intermarried. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the date of the accident in Pennsylvania and at the time of the commencement of this action to recover damages for the personal injuries resulting from that accident, plaintiff was not married to defendant. The parties were married shortly thereafter. Under the law of Pennsylvania a married woman may not sue her husband for damages for personal injuries resulting from her husband’s negligence, whether the negligence occurred before or after the marriage. In this action brought in New York, defendant set up the law of Pennsylvania as a defense. The Special Term held this defense to be good. We agree. If the right of plaintiff to bring and to maintain the action and to recover damages against her spouse is substantive, the law of Pennsylvania controls; if the right is procedural, the law of New York controls (Coster v. Coster, 289 N. Y. 438 ). Whether a given question is one of substance or one of procedure is determined by the law of the forum, and not by the law of the place where the cause of action arose (Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, 9 N Y 2d 34, 41). Under the law of New York, the right to bring and maintain the suit and to recover damages is substantive (Coster v. Coster, supra, p. 442 ). Therefore, plaintiff’s right is governed by Pennsylvania law which bars the action during the existence of the marriage relationship; it is immaterial that under Pennsylvania law that right may be procedural. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur. [ 32 Misc 2d 612 .]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2010: 120102026peak 2010 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Frankel v. Citicorp Insurance Services, Inc.80 A.D.3d 280 (2010)

Most recent

  1. Frankel v. Citicorp Insurance Services, Inc.80 A.D.3d 280 (2010)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Coster v. Coster, 46 N.E.2d 509 (N.Y. 1943) 51
Lauterbach v. Fleischer, 32 Misc. 2d 612 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list