A recent appellate court decision has affirmed that an elderly widower’s claims against a funeral service provider will proceed in court rather than through private arbitration, following allegations of mishandled burial services that resulted in emotional distress and religious violations. The ruling highlights the legal limits of enforcing arbitration agreements when contracts are signed under distressing circumstances.
The complaint was filed by Leroy Kay in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, under Docket No. L-2407-22, against SCI New Jersey Funeral Services, LLC doing business as Bloomfield-Cooper Jewish Chapels, along with several individual directors and employees. The Appellate Division released its opinion on March 2, 2026, after reviewing an appeal submitted on November 5, 2025.
According to the filings and testimony recounted by the court, Kay’s dispute began after his wife of sixty-three years died at their home on October 3, 2020. Both were of the Jewish faith and had specific wishes for her burial in accordance with religious tenets. Kay contacted the defendants because they advertised expertise in Jewish mortuary services. On October 4, 2020, a contract for these services was allegedly formed between Kay and the funeral home.
However, events at the scheduled funeral on October 6 quickly unraveled. Sixty friends and family gathered at Mount Sinai Cemetery only to learn there was a problem: defendants could not locate Mrs. Kay’s remains. During a FaceTime call initiated by a representative from the funeral home, Kay and his family were shown another woman’s body dressed in Mrs. Kay’s clothing and jewelry. Despite this discovery, the service continued without Mrs. Kay’s body present due to logistical challenges for those who had traveled.
Later that day, defendants informed Kay that his wife had been mistakenly buried in northern New Jersey at another cemetery—wearing incorrect clothing and jewelry—and next to someone she did not know. Her body was exhumed on October 7 after approval was granted for disinterment; a second funeral service took place on October 8 with only immediate family present.
Kay alleged he was presented with documents to sign immediately after viewing his wife’s decomposing body at this second service. He testified that he believed he was signing an invoice required so that ‘the funeral home could pick up the bill,’ but did not have time or clarity to review what turned out to be a contract containing mandatory arbitration clauses above signature lines and within attached terms and conditions.
Defendants moved to dismiss Kay’s complaint based on these arbitration provisions—which stated any claim would be resolved by binding arbitration under American Arbitration Association rules—and sought to compel arbitration pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(a). However, Kay opposed this motion via certification stating he never discussed or knowingly agreed to arbitrate disputes prior to signing.
The trial judge initially denied enforcement of the arbitration agreement citing unconscionability—a decision challenged by defendants who argued it lacked evidentiary support without further discovery into contract formation circumstances. The Appellate Division previously remanded for limited discovery focusing on whether both parties truly assented to arbitrate disputes (referencing Rudbart v. North Jersey District Water Supply Commission).
On remand, Judge Kathleen A. Sheedy conducted hearings where both Kay and Anthony Gerahty (a defendant director) testified about their recollections during contract signing. Testimony revealed that although Kay had business experience from owning an HVAC company prior to retirement in 2000, he relied heavily on his late wife for contractual matters and was emotionally distraught during all interactions with defendants following her death.
Judge Sheedy found both witnesses credible but determined that factors such as emotional vulnerability at contract signing—immediately after traumatic events—and lack of opportunity or clarity regarding terms rendered mutual assent impossible under fair contracting principles. The judge wrote: ‘the particular setting existing during the contract formation process renders th[e c]ontract unenforceable.’ She further noted that presenting such contracts post-service as mere formalities compounded procedural unfairness.
Defendants appealed again arguing there must also be substantive unconscionability (i.e., one-sided obligations) alongside procedural concerns for invalidation; they also contended any challenge should have been delegated directly to an arbitrator per contract language.
The appellate panel disagreed with these arguments and affirmed Judge Sheedy’s findings based on substantial evidence supporting procedural unconscionability alone given unique facts: ‘We are satisfied that in the unique circumstances of this case, the flexibility encompassed in “the doctrine of unconscionability” allows plaintiff’s claim to succeed.’
The panel concluded that while New Jersey law favors resolving disputes through arbitration generally—especially where clear delegation clauses exist—such agreements must still reflect true mutual assent free from undue pressure or confusion during formation processes involving vulnerable parties.
Kay seeks relief including damages related to loss of right of interment according to religious custom; breach of contract; violation of state consumer fraud statutes; negligent infliction of emotional distress; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and general negligence.
Attorneys representing appellants are Anselmi & Carvelli LLP (James Harry Oliverio), while Robin Kay Lord LLC (Robin Kay Lord) represents respondent Leroy Kay. The case is identified as Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Docket No. A-3282-24.
Source: A328224_Kay_v_Bloomfield_Cooper_Jewish_Chapels_Opinon_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
